SC to hear NCP-SP plea against speaker's call after Uddhav camp's

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the responses of Ajit Pawar and his 40 MLAs on a plea moved by the Sharad Pawar faction of the Nationalist Congress Party challenging Maharashtra assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar's decision declaring the group led by the deputy chief minister as the real NCP.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took note of the submissions made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who appeared in the court of behalf of the Sharad Pawar faction, that the plea needed an urgent hearing keeping in mind the short remnant tenure of the state assembly.

The term of the Maharashtra assembly expires in November.

The bench said it will hear the plea filed by Jayant Patil and Jitendra Awhad, lawmakers from the Sharad Pawar faction of the NCP, just after it has heard a similar petition of the Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray camp of the Shiv Sena.

The Thackeray group has filed a similar petition contesting the speaker's decision in favour of Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and his MLAs that they represent the real Shiv Sena.

"We will issue notice. All objections, including on grounds of maintainability, will be decided at final disposal. Liberty is granted to serve the other respondents with dasti (a mode of serving notices)," the CJI said.

Narwekar held on February 15 that the NCP faction led by Ajit Pawar, who rebelled against his uncle Sharad Pawar and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party-Shiv Sena government in Maharashtra, was the real Nationalist Congress Party.

The speaker had rejected the disqualification petitions filed by the rival NCP factions seeking disqualification of each other's MLAs.

Anti-defection law provisions in the Constitution's 10th schedule cannot be used to stifle internal dissent, the speaker had noted, while also holding that the Ajit Pawar group had "overwhelming legislative majority" of 41 of the 53 party MLAs when the NCP split in July 2023.

The Ajit Pawar group was, thus, the "real political party" when the factions emerged, Narwekar had said, delivering a blow to the Sharad Pawar-led faction.

The ruling, which followed the Election Commission's (EC) decision holding the Ajit Pawar-led faction as the real NCP, was criticised by the Sharad Pawar faction as "copy-paste" of Narwekar's earlier decision on the disqualification petitions filed by the rival Shiv Sena factions. "All the petitions seeking disqualification of MLAs are rejected," Narwekar had said.

Questioning then party supremo Sharad Pawar's decisions or defying his wishes did not amount to defection but was only internal dissent, Narwekar had said, adding that the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for disqualification of a legislator in case of defection, was misused in this case.

A party leadership cannot use the 10th schedule to stifle the dissent of a large number of members by threatening to disqualify them, he had said.

"Making and breaking into new forms, forging new alliances, undoing old relationships and striking out in unknown directions.... This is in the very nature of politics as we see it unfolding before our eyes. It is the reality of politics today. Surely, every such action cannot qualify as defection within the meaning of the 10th schedule," the speaker had said.

Prior to this, the Sharad Pawar group had moved the top court by filing a separate plea against the EC's order recognising the faction led by his estranged nephew, Ajit Pawar, as the real NCP.

Sharad Pawar, who founded the NCP with former Lok Sabha speaker Purno Sangma and Tariq Anwar in 1999 after their expulsion from the Congress, filed the petition on February 13.

In a body blow to the former Maharashtra chief minister, the EC announced on February 6 that the Ajit Pawar faction is the real NCP.

The poll panel also allotted the NCP's election symbol, "clock", to the group led by Ajit Pawar.

The EC considers the support enjoyed by each claimant in a party's organisational and legislative wings in case of a split, besides examining its constitution and the list of office-bearers that was submitted to it when the party was united, before allotting the election symbol.