The Maharashtra Assembly's Defection Drama: A Call for Independent Adjudication

The recent ruling by Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar on the disqualification petitions within the Shiv Sena has reignited the debate on whether the adjudicatory function under the anti-defection law should be entrusted to Presiding Officers in the legislature. The Speaker's decision, which favored the Eknath Shinde faction, raises concerns about the influence of political considerations on such crucial matters.

In a case that was anticipated to determine the fate of the Eknath Shinde regime, Speaker Narwekar declared that there was no basis to disqualify members from either faction within the Shiv Sena. The ruling rested on the argument that the loyalists of Chief Minister Eknath Shinde constituted the 'real political party' when the rival factions emerged on June 21, 2022.

The Speaker's verdict selectively drew upon aspects of the Supreme Court's final judgment on May 11, 2023, which criticized the Governor's decision to call for a floor test and the Speaker's recognition of the Shinde faction's appointee as the party's whip. However, the Speaker diverged from the Court's conclusions, stating that Sunil Prabhu of the Uddhav B. Thackeray (UBT) faction had "ceased to be the duly authorised whip" from June 21, 2022. This discrepancy further deepens the controversy.

The UBT group may consider approaching the Supreme Court again, arguing that the Speaker's ruling contradicts key findings of the earlier Bench. The Court had explicitly stated that no faction or group could claim to be the original political party as a defense against disqualification due to defection. Despite acknowledging the split in the Shiv Sena Legislature Party, the Court deemed the percentage of members in each faction irrelevant to the determination of a defense against disqualification.

The crux of the matter lies in the observation that as long as defection disputes remain in the hands of Speakers, rather than an independent authority, political considerations will inevitably taint such rulings. The need for a more transparent and unbiased adjudication process becomes evident in cases where the survival of a government is at stake. The Maharashtra episode underscores the imperative for reform in the current system of anti-defection law adjudication to ensure fair and impartial decisions that uphold the spirit of democratic principles.