What is 2016 Nabam Rebia Judgment?

What’s in today’s article?

• Why in news?
• What is 2016 Nabam Rebia Judgment?
• What is the background of petitions before the Supreme Court and claims made by rival parties?
• Why was the issue referred to the five-judge Constitution Bench?

 

Why in news?

• The Supreme Court fixed February 21 to hear on merits the batch of petitions related to the political fallout in Maharashtra.
  • The fallout was due to the split in the Shiv Sena between groups owing allegiance to CM Eknath Shinde and his predecessor Uddhav Thackeray.
• The top court also said that the request to re-examine the court’s 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment will also be decided along with the merits.

 

What is 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment?

• In Nabam Rebia case (2016), the SC held that a speaker will be disabled from deciding disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law (10th schedule of the constitution) if a notice for their removal is pending.
  • Four of the five judges in the bench in 2016 were in favour of this judgement.
• In other words, this judgement stopped a Speaker facing removal notice from deciding disqualification pleas against members of legislatures under anti-defection law.

 

What is the background of petitions before the Supreme Court and claims made by rival parties?

• From June 2022, the Supreme Court has been hearing a batch of petitions filed by leaders from the Thackeray and Shinde factions of the Shiv Sena.
• In June 2022, a group of Shiv Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde rebelled against Uddhav Thackeray.
• When it became evident that the rebel would call for a trust, the Shinde received disqualification notices from the then deputy speaker.
  • The faction moved the Supreme Court to consider whether the rebels should be disqualified.
• The plea also challenged the disqualification notices served on Shinde and 15 MLAs supporting him.
• The top court granted interim relief to Shinde by extending the time to file responses to the disqualification notices.
• It, later, gave the go-ahead to a floor test called by the governor. Because the then government did not have the requisite numbers, Uddhav Thackeray resigned as chief minister.
• Subsequently, the Thackeray camp filed petitions before the Supreme Court.
  • It challenged the summoning of the assembly by the Maharashtra governor.
  • It also argued that Nabam Rebia judgement enables defecting MLAs to stall disqualification proceedings by issuing a notice seeking the speaker’s removal.

 

Why was the issue referred to the five-judge Constitution Bench?

• In August 2022, a three-judge SC bench led by then CJI N V Ramana referred the questions arising out of petitions filed by rival camps to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
• It said that the Nabam Rebia verdict “requires gap filling to uphold constitutional morality”.
• 10 issues were framed for the consideration of the Constitution Bench. Few of them included:
  • To ascertain whether the notice for removal of the Speaker restricted him/ her from continuing with disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
  • To consider a situation in which the Speaker disqualifies members from the date of the complaint — what would be the status of the proceedings that took place during the pendency of the disqualification petition?
  • The scope of the Speaker’s powers related to the Whip and Leader of the House,
  • Extent of judicial review in intra-party decisions, and
  • The extent of the Governor’s power to invite a person to form a government and its judicial review
  • To address the issue of scope and powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take a decision on the split within a party.
• The Thackeray camp argued that by invoking ‘Nabam Rebia’, MLAs who want to defect can pre-empt and stall disqualification proceedings against them by seeking the Speaker’s removal through a notice.
  • This camp sought reference to the seven-judge Bench.
  • It contended that the matter had ramifications for the country’s democratic future.

 

 

---

Q1) What is a Constitution Bench?

 Whenever a matter of law arises that requires a provision or provision of the Constitution to be interpreted, or there is a “significant legal question”, it is required to be decided by a Bench involving a minimum of five judges of the Supreme Court. Such a Bench is called Constitution Bench.

  

Q2) What are the Constitutional provisions regarding the Constitution Bench?

Article 145(3) says a minimum of five judges need to sit for deciding a case involving a “substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution”, or for hearing any reference under Article 143, which deals with the power of the President to consult the SC.

 

---

Source: Supreme Court to hear Shiv Sena dispute on merits from Feb 21: what’s the background of the case? | The Wire | Times of India