n

ih

61

8
0

hs
85
rd

51
dn
92
8(

20
ka

(i
10

8
ar
1

I)

)9

10
s
85

06

k
1
dn
ih

s
5

nI

6
0

92

ih
08
r
(

20
61

rd
ka
18
nI

8(
I)

ka

)9
20

s
5
rd

06

1
dn
ih
8

s
85
a

)9

92

h
r
8(
k

61

ka

(i
0
s

nI

I)
ih

18
0

s
85
rd
The Lieutenant Governor and the NCT Delhi

6
dn
92

h
(

20

85
ka
18

i
0

ar
(
)

18

)9

10
hs
85

06

sk
dn

I
(i

6
0

n
2

h
08
ar

20
61

rd
8

)9

(i
nI

The Supreme Court held that the Delhi government, and not the Union, has control over the civil servants and day-

sk
51

ka
18

)9
0
rd

06
dn
92

h
08

hs
85
ka

(i

2
r
to-day administration of the NCT of Delhi.
)

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

nI

06

18
hs
5
rd

I
(i

6
dn
2

08

20

5
ka
18

)9

(i

08
ar
1

9
s
5

k
51

I)
n
ih

61
08

20

hs
The official designation of the Union Territory (UT) of Delhi is the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi. The Delhi

rd

dn
8
(

20
61

ka
18

)9

i
10
nI

r
8(

)9
0

hs
85
Government is currently formed with the Aam Aadmi Party in the majority.
rd

sk
1
n
92

20

5
rd
ka

(i
0

h
08
I)

61

a
18

(i
hs

Under Article 239 of the Constitution of India, the administration of UT’s is handled by an administrator appointed

)
n

61

8
0

hs
5
rd

I
(i

51
n
92

08

0
rd
ka
8

(i

92
by the President. However, in 1991 the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991 introduced Article

8
51

I)

a
8

10
s

06

sk
1

)
dn
h
08

85

nI
(i

06
92

ih
239AA which created an elected Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers including a Chief Minister for NCT
ar
1

d
8

2
nI

06

ar
8(
k
1

I)

61

)9
s
85
rd

k
1
dn
2

h
Delhi. This Assembly has the power to make laws for NCT Delhi with respect to any of the matters under the State or

20

hs
85
ka

)9

i
10

ar
8(

(i
10
hs

nI

06

k
1

8
Concurrent Lists (except public order, police and land matters). The ‘Lieutenant Governor’ (the LG) of Delhi was

hs
85
d

I
i

06

51
dn
2
ar
8(

)9

i
10

92

8
ar
8(
sk
1

10
designated the Administrator of the NCT Delhi.
85

nI

k
1

)
h

s
85
rd

I
(i

06
10

n
92

ih

rd
ka
18

10
The relationship between Articles 239 and 239AA is the source of the current political contest between the Union

2
nI

(
)

a
18

9
20

hs
5
rd

nI

sk

)
08

20

5
rd
ka

ih
and NCT Delhi government over the administrative control over the NCT Delhi territory. The SC has previously ruled

08
8(
I)

ka

)9
hs

8(
1
n

61
20

s
85
rd

I
(i

1
dn
ih
upon the scope of the LG’s powers in 2018. A five-judge Bench held that the LG is bound by the aid and advice of the

20

85
a
18

r
(
sk

ka
18

10
5

nI

06

I)
ih
08

Council of Ministers for all matters where the Legislative Assembly has the power to make laws. They also ruled that

hs
5
d

6
dn
2

08
r
8(

20
61

ka

)9

i
I

ar
8(
51
dn

61

)9
the LG only needs to be consulted on decisions taken by the Council, but his concurrence isn’t required.
0

hs

nI

k
1
92

8
r

hs
5
d
ka

i
10

92

08
ar
8(
)

(i
The Union Government sought to overcome the Supreme Court’s decision by enacting the Government of National
hs

nI

06

sk
51

61

8
d

nI
(i

1
2

ih
8
ar

85
rd
18

)9

Capital Territory (Amendment) Act, 2021 (the Amendment) which came into force on April 27th, 2021. It barred the

92
(
k

61

ka
8

0
hs
5

51

)
dn

61
08

20

nI
(i

Legislative Assembly from considering matters on the day-to-day administration of the NCT Delhi and from
h
8
r

0
1

rd
a
18

i
10

92
I

06

(
sk

I)
dn

a
18
85

06

)
dn
2

ih

conducting any inquiries into administrative decisions. It requires any bills passed by the Legislative Assembly to be
r

hs
5
ka

)9

8
r
(
61

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

I
dn

reserved by the LG for consideration by the President if the bill ‘incidentally’ covers any matters outside the

18
20

hs
5

I
(i

06
dn
08
ar

5
18

(i

92

08
r
k

I)

Assembly’s purview. Further, it mandates that all executive action taken by the government must first receive the
ka
8
hs
5

06

51

)
n

1
8

s
rd

nI
(i

06
10

92

h
8

rd
a
8

(i

LG’s ‘opinion’. The Delhi Government filed a petition in the Supreme Court (SC) challenging the constitutional validity
0

2
I

06

sk
51

)
dn

61

ka
18

)9
nI
2

ih
8
r

20

s
85
rd
ka

)9

of the Amendment on August 10th 2021.

0

h
(
61

a
8

(i
0
s

sk
51

I)
dn
ih

61

8
0

51
In their petition, the Delhi Government argues that the Amendment diminishes the powers and functions of the
n
92

ih
8
ar
8(

20
rd
10

8
8(
sk
1

)9

10
85

nI

sk
1

elected Legislative Assembly and establishes the LG as the default administrative authority over NCT Delhi on all
h

20

85
d

I
(i

6
0

dn
h
ar

20
61

(i
0
I

r
sk
1

I)
dn

matters.
1

ka
18

)9
20

85

06
dn
ih
r

s
5
ka

)9

h
08
r
8(
1

They urge the court to declare that this constitutional amendment damages the basic features of federalism,
ka

i
hs

nI

06

8(
1

I)

1
hs
85
rd
(i

06

1
dn
92

85
ka

separation of powers, rule of law and representative democracy and is hence unconstitutional.
18

(i
10

92
ar
)

18

0
hs
5

nI

sk

I)

61
08

20

5
d
i

n
ih
08
ar
8(

20
1

rd
9
nI

06

(
sk
1

I)

a
18

)9
85
rd

06

sk
dn
92

85
ka

(i
10

92

h
ar
)

18

(i
0
hs

nI

18
20

hs
85
d

nI
(i

06
ar

85
d
18

)9

(i
10

92
ar
sk

0
85

nI

k
51

)
h

61
0

hs
d

nI
(i
0

92

8
ar

20
1

rd
18

(i
10
I

06

sk

I)
dn

ka
18

)9
5

6
n
2

h
08
r

20

hs
5
rd
ka

)9

(i

08
61

a
18

)9

i
hs

(
sk
dn

18
0

I
(i

6
dn
92

h
08
r

20

85
ka
18

(i

ar
I)

18

0
hs
5

06

sk

I)
dn

1
08

5
(i

06
n
2

h
8
r
1

rd
ka
18

)9

(i
10

2
6

ka
8

)9
20

hs
85

nI

51
0

s
d
9

i
10

92

h
08
ar
8(
I)

(i
6

sk
51

I)
dn

61

8
0

51
n
92

h
8
r

0
rd
a

(i
10

92

8
sk

a
18

10
nI

I)
ih

20

hs
85
rd

6
dn
(

20
a
8

(i
0

r
sk
51

I)

61

a
18

)9
sk
dn
h
8

85
(i
0

ih
r
61

ka
18

)9

10

8(
0

hs
85

nI

06

1
2

85
d
)9

(i
0

2
ar
61

18

)9

0
I

k
dn

61
0

hs
5

I
dn
92

08
r

0
ka

92
r
8(
)

a
hs

nI

06

sk
1

)
5
rd
(i

ih
08
ka
8

(
51

I)

61

18
s

dn
h
8

20

5
i
0

08
r
(
61

ka
18

9
I)

1
20

s
85

6
dn
ih

0
9

10

92
r
(
)

ka
18
nI

)
20

hs
5
rd

08
ka

(i
I)

18
hs

06
dn

5
i

92

08
r
8(

ka
51

1
s

nI

06
ih
08

rd

2
(
1

ka
18

)9
06
 n
ih

61

8
0

hs
85
rd

51
dn
92
8(

20
ka

(i
10

8
ar
1

I)

)9

10
s
85

06

k
1
dn
ih

s
5

nI

6
0

92

ih
08
r
(

20
61

rd
ka
18
nI

8(
I)

ka

)9
20

s
5
rd

06

1
dn
ih
8

s
85
a

)9

92

h
r
8(
k

61

ka

(i
0
s

nI

I)
ih

18
0

s
85
rd
Judgement Summary: Maharashtra Political Crisis

6
dn
92

h
(

20

85
ka
18

i
0

ar
(
)

18

)9

10
hs
85

06

sk
dn

I
(i

6
0

n
2

h
08
ar

20
61

rd
8

)9

(i
nI

Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker (2016) Referred to a Larger Bench

sk
51

ka
18

)9
0
rd

06
dn
92

h
08

hs
85
ka

(i

2
r
In Nabam Rebia, a 5-Judge Bench led by Justice Kehar held that a Speaker may not hear or decide disqualification
)

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

nI

06

18
hs
5
rd

I
(i

6
dn
2

08

20
proceedings, after a notice of intention has been filed seeking their removal. CJI Chandrachud’s Bench referred this

5
ka
18

)9

(i

08
ar
1

9
s
5

k
51

I)
n
ih

61
08

20

hs
Judgement to a 7-Judge Bench for reconsideration. They cited three broad reasons for the reference.

rd

dn
8
(

20
61

ka
18

)9

i
10
nI

r
8(

)9
0

hs
85
First, according to Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (1992), the Court cannot interfere in the interlocutory stage of
rd

sk
1
n
92

20

5
rd
ka

(i
0

h
08
I)

61

a
18

(i
hs

disqualification proceedings as per the Tenth Schedule. As per Nabam Rebia, disqualification proceedings would be

)
n

61

8
0

hs
5
rd

I
(i

51
n
92

08

0
rd
ka
8

(i

92
stopped if a notice of intention to remove the Speaker was filed. This would amount to interference.

8
51

I)

a
8

10
s

06

sk
1

)
dn
h
08

85

nI
(i

06
92

ih
Second, the Bench in Nabam Rebia failed to consider the possible misuse of this decision. MLAs undergoing
ar
1

d
8

2
nI

06

ar
8(
k
1

I)

61

)9
s
85
rd

k
1
dn
2

h
disqualification would simply file a notice of intention against the Speaker and stop the proceedings.

20

hs
85
ka

)9

i
10

ar
8(

(i
10
hs

nI

06

k
1

8
Third, disabling the speaker would take away the role of the Speaker as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule. It

hs
85
d

I
i

06

51
dn
2
ar
8(

)9

i
10

92

8
ar
8(
sk
1

10
would disrupt the functioning of the Speaker, and therefore the Tribunal, in hearing disqualification proceedings. It
85

nI

k
1

)
h

s
85
rd

I
(i

06
10

n
92

ih

rd
ka
18

10
would then create a ‘constitutional hiatus’.

2
nI

(
)

a
18

9
20

hs
5
rd

nI

sk

)
08

20

5
rd
ka

ih
Interim Measures to Ensure the Objective of the Tenth Schedule is Maintained

08
8(
I)

ka

)9
hs

8(
1
n

61
20

s
85
rd

I
(i

1
dn
ih
The SC laid down the procedure to be followed while Nabam Rebia is being reconsidered by the SC. A Speaker facing

20

85
a
18

r
(
sk

ka
18

10
5

nI

06

I)
ih
08

removal may examine whether the motion of removal is done in good faith. If it is well founded, the disqualifications

hs
5
d

6
dn
2

08
r
8(

20
61

ka

)9

i
I

ar
8(
51
dn

61

)9
proceedings will be adjourned, If not, the Speaker may reject the motion and continue the disqualification
0

hs

nI

k
1
92

8
r

hs
5
d
ka

i
10

92

08
ar
8(
)

(i
proceedings. This decision of the speaker to accept or deny a motion will be subject to judicial review.
hs

nI

06

sk
51

61

8
d

nI
(i

1
2

ih
8
ar

85
rd
18

)9

The Supreme Court will not Decide on the Disqualification of the Rebel MLAs

92
(
k

61

ka
8

0
hs
5

51

)
dn

61
08

20

nI
(i

Citing Kihoto Hollohan and Rajendra Singh Rana, the SC stated that the disqualification of the rebel MLA’s was
h
8
r

0
1

rd
a
18

i
10

92
I

06

(
sk

I)
dn

a
18
85

06

)
dn
2

ih

entirely upto the Speaker of the House. They pointed out that the incumbent Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative
r

hs
5
ka

)9

8
r
(
61

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

I
dn

Assembly Mr. Rahul Narwekar was appointed as per procedure. The Supreme Court, therefore cannot intervene. The

18
20

hs
5

I
(i

06
dn
08
ar

5
18

(i

92

08
r
k

I)

decision of the Speaker however falls squarely within the scope of judicial review.
ka
8
hs
5

06

51

)
n

1
8

s
rd

nI
(i

06
10

92

h
8

rd
a
8

(i

In response to the petitioners’ request to delegate this task to the Deputy Speaker, the SC clarified that the Deputy
0

2
I

06

sk
51

)
dn

61

ka
18

)9
nI
2

ih
8
r

20

s
85
rd
ka

)9

Speaker may only act in absence of the Speaker. The petitioners had sought to show the Court that Mr. Narwekar
0

h
(
61

a
8

(i
0
s

sk
51

I)
dn
ih

61

8
0

51
was partial and biassed, as he had removed Mr. Sunil Prabhu of the Shiv Sena as the Chief Whip. The Court stated
n
92

ih
8
ar
8(

20
rd
10

8
8(
sk
1

)9

10
85

nI

sk
1

that the Speaker is ‘expected’ to act fairly, independently, and impartially in deciding defection matters. Any
h

20

85
d

I
(i

6
0

dn
h
ar

20
61

(i
0
I

r
sk
1

I)
dn

indications of being biassed will be considered when the Court reviews the decisions of the Speaker, but will not
1

ka
18

)9
20

85

06
dn
ih
r

s
5
ka

)9

h
08
r
8(
1

review a duly appointed Speaker themselves.

ka

i
hs

nI

06

8(
1

I)

1
hs
85
rd
(i

06

1
dn
92

85
ka

Validity of Actions Taken in the House by Rebel MLAs

18

(i
10

92
ar
)

18

0
hs
5

nI

sk

I)

61
08

20

5
d
i

The SC stated that an MLA has the ‘right to participate in the proceedings of the House until they are disqualified.’
n
ih
08
ar
8(

20
1

rd
9
nI

06

(
sk
1

I)

a
18

)9
85
rd

06

Article 189(2) of the Constitution prospectively states that no proceedings in the legislature will be considered
sk
dn
92

85
ka

(i
10

92

h
ar
)

18

(i
0
hs

nI

invalid, even if it is found that one of the members that voted was ineligible to. CJI Chandrachud wrote that allowing
1

18
20

hs
85
d

nI
(i

06
ar

85
d
18

)9

(i
10

92
ar
sk

the validity of parliamentary decisions to not be subject to a disqualification, when disqualifications are made
8

0
85

nI

k
51

)
h

61
0

hs
d

nI
(i
0

92

8
ar

20

prospectively. To subject legislative decisions to future assessments of validity would lead to chaos.
1

rd
18

(i
10
I

06

sk

I)
dn

ka
18

)9
5

6
n
2

h
08
r

20

hs
5

The appointment of Mr. Rahul Narwekar as Speaker by the rebel MLAs, using appropriate procedure stands good in
rd
ka

)9

(i

08
61

a
18

)9

i
hs

(
sk
dn

18
0

law.
(i

6
dn
92

h
08
r

20

85
ka
18

(i

ar
I)

18

0
hs
5

06

Appointment of New Party Leader and Chief Whip Illegal

sk

I)
dn

1
08

5
(i

06
n
2

h
8
r
1

rd
ka
18

)9

(i
10

2
6

Laying clear distinction between legislature party and political party, the SC held that the legislature party acts as per
ka
8

)9
20

hs
85

nI

51
0

s
d
9

i
10

92

h
08
ar
8(

the direction of the political party. It clarified that the Tenth Schedule, Representation of the People Act, 1951,
I)

(i
6

sk
51

I)
dn

61

8
0

51
n
92

h
8
r

Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rule, 1986 all indicate that the
rd
a

(i
10

92

8
sk

a
18

10
nI

I)
ih

20

hs

legislature party acts on the behest of the political party, and are categorically distinct. To sever the two would be to
85
rd

6
dn
(

20
a
8

(i
0

r
sk
51

I)

61

a
18

)9

indicate that a legislator could rely on a political party to be elected, and then completely distance themselves from
sk
dn
h
8

85
(i
0

ih
r
61

ka
18

)9

10

it. The Tenth Schedule is built on to safeguard democracy from this very outcome. The appointment of the whip and
8(
0

hs
85

nI

06

1
2

85
d
)9

(i
0

the leader of the party, therefore falls squarely within the discretion of the political party.
ar
61

18

)9

0
I

k
dn

61
0

hs
5

I
dn
92

08
r

However, when the Speaker made the decision to appoint Mr. Eknath Shinde as the Shiv Sena leader and Mr. Sunil
0
ka

92
r
8(
)

a
hs

nI

06

sk
1

Prabhu as the Chief Whip, had been made aware that the Shiv Sena had split. The Bench held that the Speaker
5
rd
(i

ih
08
ka
8

(
51

I)

61

18

should have attempted to identify if the resolution seeking these appointments were made by the political party.
s

dn
h
8

20

5
i
0

08
r
(
61

ka
18

On Identifying the ‘Real’ Shiv Sena

I)

1
20

s
85

6
dn
ih

0
9

10

92
r
(
)

ka
18
nI

)
20

hs
5
rd

08
ka

(i
I)

18
hs

06
dn

5
i

92

08
r
8(

ka
51

1
s

nI

06
ih
08

rd

2
(
1

ka
18

)9
06
 I
r dn nI I I
rd r dn dn I I
ka ka r r dn dn nI
hs hs ka ka r rd nI nI
(i (i hs s ka ka rd rd nI nI
18 (i ih hs hs ka ka rd rd
5 18 18 8( (i (i hs hs ka ka a
08 85 5 1 18 (i i hs hs s k
6 1 1 0 08 85 8 5 5 18 18 8( 8 (i (i ih
1 0 5 1 ( ih
9 20 2 06 06 61 10 1 08 08 85 51 5 18 18 8(
)9 92 20 06 61 10 08 85 1
I) I ) )9 2 2 06 0 6 1 08 0 85
rdn dn nI )9 )9 92 20 06 61 61 0
a r d nI I I ) 9 2 0 0 61
sk ka ar rd dn dn nI I) )9 92 92 20
ih hs sk ka ar ar d n nI I) ) )9
8 ( (i h hs sk k k ar a rd d n nI
(i i h hs ar rd rd nI n
8 51 18 18 8( 8 (i (i hs sk sk ka rd rd
0 85 5 1 1 8 (i ih h h s s ka ka
10 08 85 51 18 8( (i (i ih hs s ka
0 61 6 10 0 85 8 51 18 8 ( (i ih
2 0 0 61 6 1 0 0 85 8 5 1 18 8 (
I )9 ) 92 92 20 06 0 61 61 10 08 85 85 51 18
1 5
time of this Judgement.

dn nI I) )9 )92 92 20 06 6 10 0 08 8
r rd dn nI ) 9 2 20 06 61 1 0
ka a r d d nI nI I) )9 ) 9 2 0 06 61
hs sk ka ar d n I )9 92 2 0 0
h sk ar ar rd rdn nI nI I) )9 92
8 (i (i i hs h sk sk a a r d I I ) 92
h sk rd dn n I)
of the name and symbol afresh.

51 18 8( (i (i ih ih sk ka ka ar rd dn
0 8 85 51 18 18 8( ( ih i hs s k ka ar r dn
0 8 5 1 8 ( i hs i h sk ka
61 61 10 08 85 85 51 18 8( 8( hs h s
20 0 6 1 10 8 5 51 1 18( (i (i ih
) 9 92 20 06 0 6 6 10 10 08 0 8 85 18 18 8(
) 9 2 6 1 0 85 5 5 1
nI nI I) )9 92 9 20 20 06 61 1 10 08 85
rd rd dn nI I) 9 92 20 06 6 1 108 0 85
ka r d n I) I) ) 9 2 0 06 6 1 10
hs ska ka ar rd dn dn nI I) )9 )92 20 06
i ih sk a ar r rd nI 92 2 06
8( ( hs h sk k ka a r dn d nI I) I )9 )9 92
18 (i (i h hs sk ka ar rd dn n I I)
51 18 18 (i (i hs ih sk ka ar rd dn
08 85 5 18 8 (i hs ih s k k a r r dn
1 10 08 0 85 8 5 51 18 1 8( 8 (i ( ih i hs ka ka
06 6 1 8 5 8 ( hs hs s
20 06 0 61 6 10 10 08 0 85 8 51 51 18 1 8( 8(i (i i h hs
9 9 2 2 0 6 1 1 0 8 5 1 8 ( (i
I) I) )9 92 20 06 06 61 10 08 85 85 51 5 18 1 8
2 10 0 8 5
instances consider different facts, with different purposes.

rdn dn nI n I) I )9 ) 92 9 20 06 0 61 6 08
ka r d I) 9 2 61 6 10 1 08
s ka kar ard dn d nI I) I )9 )92 20 20 1
ih s k ar ar dn n )9 ) 9 920 2 06 06
( ( ih i hs hs sk k ar rd r dn nI I I ) )9
18 h sk a rd r dn n I I 92
18 1 8( (i (i hs ih sk ska ka dn I) I
5 5 18 8 (i ( h h s ka kar a rd dn dn
08 08 85 51 18 18 (i (i ih i hs s sk k ar ar dn
1 08 5 18 18 ( ih ih sk kar
06 61 10 08 0 85 5 18 18( ( i hs h s
92 20 06 0 61 6 1 1 08 0 85 8 5 5 18 1 8( 8( (i ih
) 9 2 06 1 08 5 1 18 8(
nI I) I )9 92 9 20 06 61 10 08 85 5 1
rd rdn I) I) ) 92 92 20 06 061 61 10 08 85 85
ka rdn dn n nI I) )9 92 06 61 10 0
ka a a r rd n I ) ) 92 9 20 0 6 6 1
hs sk ka rd rd dn nI I) )92 92 20 61
(i ih sk s ka a r rd nI I ) 9 20 20
( ih h hs sk ka rd dn n nI I) )9 )9
18 18 8( (i i h s ska k a ar rd d n I
5 5 1 8 ( (i i h h k a ar r dn nI
08 85 51 18 8( (i hs hs sk k a rd rd
1 108 0 8 85 18 1 8 (i (i ih hs sk ka
06 6 10 0 85 51 18 8 (i h hs ska
2 0 0 61 6 1 0 0 85 8 5 1 1 8( 8 (i (i h
)9 92 20 06 61 10 08 85 51 8 (i
) )92 2 61 6 1 0 85 8 51 18 18 8
)9 )9 20 20 06 61 10 8 5
)9 )9 20 2 0 6 10 10 08 85 8 51
)9 )9 92 20 06 06 61 10
) )9 9 2 2 6 6 10
) )9 20 20
)9 )9 20
)9
The SC held that the ECI cannot be asked to wait while the disqualification proceedings complete, to allot a faction of

allocation, such a decision stands. If the faction is disqualified later, the remaining faction must apply for allotment
bow and arrow to the Shinde led faction. This decision was challenged before the SC and remains undecided at the

The Court clarified that the decision of the ECI had no bearing on the disqualification proceedings. Decisions in both
a party with the name and symbol. It clarified that the decision applies prospectively. That is, at the time of
On February 17th 2023, the Election Commission of India allotted the name ‘Shiv Sena’ and the party symbol of the
 n
ih

61

8
0

hs
85
rd

51
dn
92
8(

20
ka

(i
10

8
ar
1

I)

)9

10
s
85

06

k
1
dn
ih

s
5

nI

6
0

92

ih
08
r
(

20
61

rd
ka
18
nI

8(
I)

ka

)9
20

s
5
rd

06

1
dn
ih
8

s
85
a

)9

92

h
r
8(
k

61

ka

(i
0
s

nI

I)
ih

18
0

s
85
rd
Disqualification Proceedings Against Maharashtra MLAs

6
dn
92

h
(

20

85
ka
18

i
0

ar
(
)

18

)9

10
hs
85

06

sk
dn

I
(i

6
0

n
2

h
08
ar

20
61

rd
8

)9

(i
nI

The Supreme Court referred Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker (2016) to a larger Bench. It held that the Governor had

sk
51

ka
18

)9
0
rd

06
dn
92

h
08

hs
85
ka

(i

2
r
no objective material to call for a floor test. Further, it stated the speaker would decide whether the Eknath Shinde
)

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

nI

06

18
hs
5
rd

I
(i

6
dn
2

08

20
faction had defected from the Shiv Sena.

5
ka
18

)9

(i

08
ar
1

9
s
5

k
51

I)
n
ih

61
08

20

hs
On November 28th, 2019, Mr. Uddhav Thackeray of the Shiv Sena, heading the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance

rd

dn
8
(

20
61

ka
18

)9

i
10
nI

r
8(

)9
0

hs
85
with the Congress and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), was sworn in as Chief Minister of Maharashtra. A month
rd

sk
1
n
92

20

5
rd
ka

(i
0

h
08
I)

61

a
18

(i
hs

before, on October 24th, 2019, the BJP-Shiv Sena Alliance had won the Assembly Elections. A power sharing

)
n

61

8
0

hs
5
rd

I
(i

51
n
92

08

0
rd
ka
8

(i

92
conflict—including a demand for rotational Chief Ministership and more cabinet berths—arose between the BJP and

8
51

I)

a
8

10
s

06

sk
1

)
dn
h
08

85

nI
(i

06
92

ih
Shiv Sena, which ultimately led to the breaking of the alliance. On November 22nd, the the NCP-Sena-Congress
ar
1

d
8

2
nI

06

ar
8(
k
1

I)

61

)9
s
85
rd

k
1
dn
2

h
parties announced their new alliance, with Mr. Thackeray as their Chief Ministerial candidate.

20

hs
85
ka

)9

i
10

ar
8(

(i
10
hs

nI

06

k
1

8
On June 27th, 2021, NCP chief Sharad Pawar had confidently proclaimed that ‘the (MVA) government is running

hs
85
d

I
i

06

51
dn
2
ar
8(

)9

i
10

92

8
ar
8(
sk
1

10
smoothly and… (he had) no doubt that this government will last for all five years’. A year later, the state of the MVA
85

nI

k
1

)
h

s
85
rd

I
(i

06
10

n
92

ih

rd
ka
18

10
alliance was far from stable. On June 10th, 2022, BJP won three of the six Rajya Sabha seats in Maharashtra,

2
nI

(
)

a
18

9
20

hs
5
rd

nI

sk

)
08

20

5
rd
ka

ih
delivering the first blow to the MVA alliance. Ten days later (June 20th, 2022) the BJP won five out of ten seats in the

08
8(
I)

ka

)9
hs

8(
1
n

61
20

s
85
rd

I
(i

1
dn
ih
Maharashtra Council polls. As former Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis pointed out, this was the ‘beginning of

20

85
a
18

r
(
sk

ka
18

10
5

nI

06

I)
ih
08

change’ in the Maharashtra political landscape.

hs
5
d

6
dn
2

08
r
8(

20
61

ka

)9

i
I

ar
8(
51
dn

61

)9
Power struggles within the Shiv Sena came to the forefront on the day after the Maharashtra Council polls results
0

hs

nI

k
1
92

8
r

hs
5
d
ka

i
10

92

08
ar
8(
)

(i
were released. On June 21st, Mr. Eknath Shinde went missing along with a number of Shiv Sena MLAs. Many
hs

nI

06

sk
51

61

8
d

nI
(i

1
2

ih
8
ar

85
rd
18

)9

reportedly took residence in Surat, Gujarat and later travelled to Gauhati, Assam. On the same day, Mr. Uddhav

92
(
k

61

ka
8

0
hs
5

51

)
dn

61
08

20

nI
(i

Thackeray called an emergency party meeting which the rebel MLAs refused to attend. The Shiv Sena removed Mr.
h
8
r

0
1

rd
a
18

i
10

92
I

06

(
sk

I)
dn

a
18
85

06

)
dn
2

ih

Eknath Shinde as the Legislature-Party leader, later approved by the Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative
r

hs
5
ka

)9

8
r
(
61

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

I
dn

Assembly, Mr. Narhari Zirwal.

18
20

hs
5

I
(i

06
dn
08
ar

5
18

(i

92

08
r
k

I)

Mr. Shinde responded claiming that he had the support of over 40 MLAs, and represented a significant portion of the
ka
8
hs
5

06

51

)
n

1
8

s
rd

nI
(i

06
10

92

h
8

rd
a
8

(i

party. He further said that with a dwindling group of supporters, Mr. Thackeray was no longer the party’s chosen
0

2
I

06

sk
51

)
dn

61

ka
18

)9
nI
2

ih
8
r

20

s
85
rd
ka

)9

representative.
0

h
(
61

a
8

(i
0
s

sk
51

I)
dn
ih

61

8
0

51
On June 24th, 2022, Mr. Uddhav Thackeray urged the Deputy Speaker to begin disqualification proceedings against
n
92

ih
8
ar
8(

20
rd
10

8
8(
sk
1

)9

10
85

nI

sk
1

the rebel Shiv Sena MLAs, including Mr. Eknath Shinde, for defecting from the Shiv Sena. On the same day, two
h

20

85
d

I
(i

6
0

dn
h
ar

20
61

(i
0
I

r
sk
1

I)
dn

independent MLAs moved a ‘no confidence’ motion against the Deputy Speaker Mr. Zirwal through an anonymous
1

ka
18

)9
20

85

06
dn
ih
r

s
5
ka

)9

h
08
r
8(
1

email, to remove him from his position. The Deputy Speaker rejected the motion as an unauthorised email lacked
ka

i
hs

nI

06

8(
1

I)

1
hs
85
rd
(i

06

1
dn
92

85
ka

authenticity, and issued disqualification proceedings against the rebel MLAs. The Deputy Speaker gave the Shinde
18

(i
10

92
ar
)

18

0
hs
5

nI

sk

I)

61
08

20

5
d
i

faction two days to respond to the disqualification notice.

n
ih
08
ar
8(

20
1

rd
9
nI

06

(
sk
1

I)

a
18

)9
85
rd

06

The next day (June 25th, 2022), Mr. Shinde’s faction of the Shiv Sena challenged the disqualification proceedings
sk
dn
92

85
ka

(i
10

92

h
ar
)

18

(i
0
hs

nI

before the Supreme Court on two grounds. First, they argued that the email resolution to remove Deputy Speaker
1

18
20

hs
85
d

nI
(i

06
ar

85
d
18

)9

(i
10

92
ar
sk

Narhari Zirwal was moved before the disqualification proceedings were initiated—the motion passed by Mr. Zirwal
8

0
85

nI

k
51

)
h

61
0

hs
d

nI
(i
0

92

8
ar

20

had no bearing. Second, they argued that a minimum of seven days must be given to respond to the disqualification
1

rd
18

(i
10
I

06

sk

I)
dn

ka
18

)9
5

6
n
2

h
08
r

20

hs
5

notice—the rebel MLAs were given two.

rd
ka

)9

(i

08
61

a
18

)9

i
hs

(
sk
dn

18
0

On June 27th, 2022, a Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala issued
(i

6
dn
92

h
08
r

20

85
ka
18

(i

ar
I)

18

0
hs
5

06

an unusual Order. The Bench gave the rebel Shiv Sena MLAs 12 days of ‘breathing time’ to respond to the
sk

I)
dn

1
08

5
(i

06
n
2

h
8
r
1

rd
ka
18

)9

(i
10

2
6

disqualification notice issued on June 25th by the Deputy Speaker. The Court’s intervention was unexpected. Usually,
ka
8

)9
20

hs
85

nI

51
0

s
d
9

i
10

92

h
08
ar
8(

the Court does not intervene in ongoing proceedings of the House and waits for the Speaker’s decision, which it may
I)

(i
6

sk
51

I)
dn

61

8
0

51
n
92

h
8
r

later review.
rd
a

(i
10

92

8
sk

a
18

10
nI

I)
ih

20

hs

On June 28th, 2022, the Shinde faction requested the Governor of Maharashtra Mr. Bhagat Singh Koshyari to direct
85
rd

6
dn
(

20
a
8

(i
0

r
sk
51

I)

61

a
18

)9

a floor test in the Assembly. Mr. Koshyari agreed to conduct the floor test on June 30th, 2022. Immediately, the floor
sk
dn
h
8

85
(i
0

ih
r
61

ka
18

)9

10

test was challenged by the Thackeray faction in the Supreme Court. After four hours of arguments, on June 29th,
8(
0

hs
85

nI

06

1
2

85
d
)9

(i
0

2022, the Supreme Court refused to stay the floor test. Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray resigned within the hour,
ar
61

18

)9

0
I

k
dn

61
0

hs
5

I
dn
92

08
r

following the SC’s refusal to stay the floor test.

0
ka

92
r
8(
)

a
hs

nI

06

sk
1

The Court heard the initial challenge against the disqualification proceedings on July 20th, 2022. A 3-Judge Bench
5
rd
(i

ih
08
ka
8

(
51

I)

61

18

comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli heard arguments from Senior
s

dn
h
8

20

5
i
0

08
r
(
61

ka
18

9
I)

1
20

s
85

6
dn
ih

0
9

10

92
r
(
)

ka
18
nI

)
20

hs
5
rd

08
ka

(i
I)

18
hs

06
dn

5
i

92

08
r
8(

ka
51

1
s

nI

06
ih
08

rd

2
(
1

ka
18

)9
06
 n
ih

61

8
0

hs
85
rd

51
dn
92
8(

20
ka

(i
10

8
ar
1

I)

)9

10
s
85

06

k
1
dn
ih

s
5

nI

6
0

92

ih
08
r
(

20
61

rd
ka
18
nI

8(
I)

ka

)9
20

s
5
rd

06

1
dn
ih
8

s
85
a

)9

92

h
r
8(
k

61

ka

(i
0
s

nI

I)
ih

18
0

s
85
rd
Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the Thackeray camp of the Shiv Sena and Senior Advocates

6
dn
92

h
(

20

85
ka
18

i
0

ar
(
)

18

)9

10
hs
85

I
Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Mr. Eknath Shinde and the rebel MLAs.

06

sk
dn

I
(i

6
0

n
2

h
08
ar

20
61

rd
8

)9

(i
nI

The Shinde faction argued that they never defected from the Shiv Sena—they merely chose a different leader for

sk
51

ka
18

)9
0
rd

06
dn
92

h
08

hs
85
ka

(i

2
r
themselves. The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950, which deals with defection of members of the
)

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

nI

06

18
hs
5
rd

I
(i

6
dn
2

08

20
legislature from their political party, would not apply to this present case.

5
ka
18

)9

(i

08
ar
1

9
s
5

k
51

I)
n
ih

61
08

20

hs
The Thackeray faction argued that the Shinde faction’s actions—disregard for the party Whip, appointment of a new

rd

dn
8
(

20
61

ka
18

)9

i
10
nI

r
8(

)9
0

hs
85
Deputy Speaker, call for floor test, and insistence of the Shinde faction’s majority—were all acts of defection. An
rd

sk
1
n
92

20

5
rd
ka

(i
0

h
08
I)

61

a
18

(i
hs

exception under Para 3 of the Tenth Schedule once stated that splitting within a party with a minimum of one-third

)
n

61

8
0

hs
5
rd

I
(i

51
n
92

08

0
rd
ka
8

(i

92
of the party members was not defection. However, this exception was repealed in 2003 through the Constitution

8
51

I)

a
8

10
s

06

sk
1

)
dn
h
08

85

nI
(i

06
92

ih
(Ninety-First Amendment) Act. The Shinde faction, therefore, no longer enjoyed the protection of the Tenth
ar
1

d
8

2
nI

06

ar
8(
k
1

I)

61

)9
s
85
rd

k
1
dn
2

h
Schedule. The Bench expressed concern that there was no clarity on how the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of

20

hs
85
ka

)9

i
10

ar
8(

(i
10
hs

nI

06

k
1

8
India, 1950 would apply to this present case.

hs
85
d

I
i

06

51
dn
2
ar
8(

)9

i
10

92

8
ar
8(
sk
1

10
On September 6th, 2022 the SC announced that the case would be decided by a 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by
85

nI

k
1

)
h

s
85
rd

I
(i

06
10

n
92

ih

rd
ka
18

10
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha.

2
nI

(
)

a
18

9
20

hs
5
rd

nI

sk

)
08

20

5
rd
ka

ih
Before making substantial arguments, the Thackeray faction submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgement

08
8(
I)

ka

)9
hs

8(
1
n

61
20

s
85
rd

I
(i

1
dn
ih
in Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker (2016) required reconsideration by a 7-Judge Bench. The Judgement bars the

20

85
a
18

r
(
sk

ka
18

10
5

nI

06

I)
ih
08

Speaker from considering disqualification petitions in the House while they are facing removal. The Thackeray

hs
5
d

6
dn
2

08
r
8(

20
61

ka

)9

i
I

ar
8(
51
dn

61

)9
faction claimed that this allows members of the House to ‘paralyse’ and curb the Speakers’ powers.
0

hs

nI

k
1
92

8
r

hs
5
d
ka

i
10

92

08
ar
8(
)

(i
On February 17th, 2023 the Bench decided not to immediately refer the case to a 7-Judge Bench. The Bench clarified
hs

nI

06

sk
51

61

8
d

nI
(i

1
2

ih
8
ar

85
rd
18

)9

that they may refer the case after hearing substantial arguments in the case.

92
(
k

61

ka
8

0
hs
5

51

)
dn

61
08

20

nI
(i

On March 16th, 2023, the CJI Chandrachud-led Constitution Bench reserved Judgement in the case.
h
8
r

0
1

rd
a
18

i
10

92
I

06

(
sk

I)
dn

a
18
85

06

)
dn
2

ih
r

hs
5
ka

)9

8
r
(
61

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

I
dn

18
20

hs
5

I
(i

06
dn
08
ar

5
18

(i

92

08
r
k

I)

ka
8
hs
5

06

51

)
n

1
8

s
rd

nI
(i

06
10

92

h
8

rd
a
8

(i
0

2
I

06

sk
51

)
dn

61

ka
18

)9
nI
2

ih
8
r

20

s
85
rd
ka

)9

h
(
61

a
8

(i
0
s

sk
51

I)
dn
ih

61

8
0

51
n
92

ih
8
ar
8(

20
rd
10

8
8(
sk
1

)9

10
85

nI

sk
1
h

20

85
d

I
(i

6
0

dn
h
ar

20
61

(i
0
I

r
sk
1

I)
dn

ka
18

)9
20

85

06
dn
ih
r

s
5
ka

)9

h
08
r
8(
1

ka

i
hs

nI

06

8(
1

I)

1
hs
85
rd
(i

06

1
dn
92

85
ka
18

(i
10

92
ar
)

18

0
hs
5

nI

sk

I)

61
08

20

5
d
i

n
ih
08
ar
8(

20
1

rd
9
nI

06

(
sk
1

I)

a
18

)9
85
rd

06

sk
dn
92

85
ka

(i
10

92

h
ar
)

18

(i
0
hs

nI

18
20

hs
85
d

nI
(i

06
ar

85
d
18

)9

(i
10

92
ar
sk

0
85

nI

k
51

)
h

61
0

hs
d

nI
(i
0

92

8
ar

20
1

rd
18

(i
10
I

06

sk

I)
dn

ka
18

)9
5

6
n
2

h
08
r

20

hs
5
rd
ka

)9

(i

08
61

a
18

)9

i
hs

(
sk
dn

18
0

I
(i

6
dn
92

h
08
r

20

85
ka
18

(i

ar
I)

18

0
hs
5

06

sk

I)
dn

1
08

5
(i

06
n
2

h
8
r
1

rd
ka
18

)9

(i
10

2
6

ka
8

)9
20

hs
85

nI

51
0

s
d
9

i
10

92

h
08
ar
8(
I)

(i
6

sk
51

I)
dn

61

8
0

51
n
92

h
8
r

0
rd
a

(i
10

92

8
sk

a
18

10
nI

I)
ih

20

hs
85
rd

6
dn
(

20
a
8

(i
0

r
sk
51

I)

61

a
18

)9
sk
dn
h
8

85
(i
0

ih
r
61

ka
18

)9

10

8(
0

hs
85

nI

06

1
2

85
d
)9

(i
0

2
ar
61

18

)9

0
I

k
dn

61
0

hs
5

I
dn
92

08
r

0
ka

92
r
8(
)

a
hs

nI

06

sk
1

)
5
rd
(i

ih
08
ka
8

(
51

I)

61

18
s

dn
h
8

20

5
i
0

08
r
(
61

ka
18

9
I)

1
20

s
85

6
dn
ih

0
9

10

92
r
(
)

ka
18
nI

)
20

hs
5
rd

08
ka

(i
I)

18
hs

06
dn

5
i

92

08
r
8(

ka
51

1
s

nI

06
ih
08

rd

2
(
1

ka
18

)9
06
 n
ih

61

8
0

hs
85
rd

51
dn
92
8(

20
ka

(i
10

8
ar
1

I)

)9

10
s
85

06

k
1
dn
ih

s
5

nI

6
0

92

ih
08
r
(

20
61

rd
ka
18
nI

8(
I)

ka

)9
20

s
5
rd

06

1
dn
ih
8

s
85
a

)9

92

h
r
8(
k

61

ka

(i
0
s

nI

I)
ih

18
0

s
85
rd
EWS Reservation

6
dn
92

h
(

20

85
ka
18

i
0

ar
(
)

18

)9

10
hs
85

06

sk
dn

I
(i

6
0

n
2

h
08
ar

20
61

rd
8

)9

(i
nI

In a 3-2 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing EWS reservation. With

sk
51

ka
18

)9
0
rd

06
dn
92

h
08

hs
85
ka

(i

2
r
this, the Court extended the net of reservation benefits to include solely economic backwardness.
)

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

nI

06

18
hs
5
rd

I
(i

6
dn
2

08

20
On January 9th 2019, the Parliament of India enacted the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act,

5
ka
18

)9

(i

08
ar
1

9
s
5

k
51

I)
n
ih

61
08

20

hs
2019 which enabled the State to make reservations in higher education and matters of public employment on the

rd

dn
8
(

20
61

ka
18

)9

i
10
nI

r
8(

)9
0

hs
85
basis of economic criteria alone. The Act amended Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution by inserting 15(6) and 16(6).
rd

sk
1
n
92

20

5
rd
ka

(i
0

h
08
I)

61

a
18

(i
hs

It received presidential assent on January 12th 2019 and was published in the Gazette on the same day.

)
n

61

8
0

hs
5
rd

I
(i

51
n
92

08

0
rd
ka
8

(i

92
The Amendment under Article 15(6) enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any

8
51

I)

a
8

10
s

06

sk
1

)
dn
h
08

85

nI
(i

06
92

ih
economically weaker section of citizens, including reservations in educational institutions. It states that such
ar
1

d
8

2
nI

06

ar
8(
k
1

I)

61

)9
s
85
rd

k
1
dn
2

h
reservations can be made in any educational institution, including both aided and unaided private

20

hs
85
ka

)9

i
10

ar
8(

(i
10
hs

nI

06

k
1

8
institutions, except minority educational institutions covered under Article 30(1). It further states that the upper

hs
85
d

I
i

06

51
dn
2
ar
8(

)9

i
10

92

8
ar
8(
sk
1

10
limit of EWS reservations will be 10% (meaning up to 10% of seats can be reserved for citizens falling in the EWS
85

nI

k
1

)
h

s
85
rd

I
(i

06
10

n
92

ih

rd
ka
18

10
category). This 10% ceiling is independent of ceilings on existing reservations.

2
nI

(
)

a
18

9
20

hs
5
rd

nI

sk

)
08

20

5
rd
ka

ih
Article 16(6) enables the State to make provisions for reservation in appointments. Again, these provisions will

08
8(
I)

ka

)9
hs

8(
1
n

61
20

s
85
rd

I
(i

1
dn
ih
be subject to a 10% ceiling, in addition to the existing reservations.

20

85
a
18

r
(
sk

ka
18

10
5

nI

06

I)
ih
08

More than 20 petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment. They argue

hs
5
d

6
dn
2

08
r
8(

20
61

ka

)9

i
I

ar
8(
51
dn

61

)9
that the Amendment violates the basic features of the Constitution and violates the fundamental right to equality
0

hs

nI

k
1
92

8
r

hs
5
d
ka

i
10

92

08
ar
8(
)

(i
under Article 14. In particular, they make the following arguments:
hs

nI

06

sk
51

61

8
d

nI
(i

1
2

ih
8
ar

85
rd
18

)9

1. Reservations cannot be based solely on economic criteria, given the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra

92
(
k

61

ka
8

0
hs
5

51

)
dn

61
08

20

nI
(i

Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).

h
8
r

0
1

rd
a
18

i
10

92
I

06

(
sk

I)
dn

a
18
85

06

)
dn
2

ih

2. SCs/STs and OBCs cannot be excluded from economic reservations, as this would violate the fundamental right
r

hs
5
ka

)9

8
r
(
61

ka
18

)9

(i
10
hs

I
dn

to equality.

18
20

hs
5

I
(i

06
dn
08
ar

5
18

(i

92

08
r
k

I)

3. The Amendment introduces reservations that exceed the 50% ceiling-limit on reservations, established
ka
8
hs
5

06

51

)
n

1
8

s
rd

nI
(i

06
10

92

h
8

rd
a
8

(i

by Indra Sawhney.
0

2
I

06

sk
51

)
dn

61

ka
18

)9
nI
2

ih
8
r

20

s
85
rd
ka

)9

4. Imposing reservations on educational institutions that do not receive State aid violates the fundamental right
0

h
(
61

a
8

(i
0
s

sk
51

I)
dn
ih

61

8
0

51
to equality.
n
92

ih
8
ar
8(

20
rd
10

8
8(
sk
1

)9

10
85

nI

sk
1

At present, 49.5% of seats in education and public appointments are reserved, with 15%, 7.5% and 27% quotas for
h

20

85
d

I
(i

6
0

dn
h
ar

20
61

(i
0
I

r
sk
1

I)
dn

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes respectively.

1

ka
18

)9
20

85

06
dn
ih
r

s
5
ka

)9

h
08
r
8(
1

After five days of hearings in 2019, the Court had reserved its order on the issue of referring the case to a
ka

i
hs

nI

06

8(
1

I)

1
hs
85
rd
(i

06

1
dn
92

85
ka

Constitution Bench. On August 5th 2020, the Court decided to refer this case to a five-judge bench.
18

(i
10

92
ar
)

18

0
hs
5

nI

sk

I)

61
08

20

5
d
i

On August 30th, 2022, the Supreme Court listed the matter to be heard, along with four other Constitution Bench
n
ih
08
ar
8(

20
1

rd
9
nI

06

(
sk
1

I)

a
18

)9
85
rd

06

matters, from the first week of September. A 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by CJI U.U. Lalit stated its intention to
sk
dn
92

85
ka

(i
10

92

h
ar
)

18

(i
0
hs

nI

hear this case along with the challenge to Andhra Pradesh’s 2005 Act providing reservations for Muslims in the State.
1

18
20

hs
85
d

nI
(i

06
ar

85
d
18

)9

(i
10

92
ar
sk

However, on September 6th, the Bench stated that they would decide when to hear the EWS reservation case first.
8

0
85

nI

k
51

)
h

61
0

hs
d

nI
(i
0

92

8
ar

20

On September 8th the Bench accepted the issues framed by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal. They will decide:
1

rd
18

(i
10
I

06

sk

I)
dn

ka
18

)9
5

6
n
2

h
08
r

20

hs
5

1. If reservations can be granted solely on the basis of economic criteria?

rd
ka

)9

(i

08
61

a
18

)9

i
hs

(
sk
dn

18
0

2. If States can provide reservations in private educational institutions which do not receive government aid, as
(i

6
dn
92

h
08
r

20

85
ka
18

(i

ar
I)

18

0
hs
5

06

provided in the Amendment?

sk

I)
dn

1
08

5
(i

06
n
2

h
8
r
1

rd
ka
18

)9

(i
10

2
6

3. If EWS reservations are invalid for excluding Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and
ka
8

)9
20

hs
85

nI

51
0

s
d
9

i
10

92

h
08
ar
8(

Socially and Economically Backward Classes from its scope?

I)

(i
6

sk
51

I)
dn

61

8
0

51
n
92

h
8
r

On September 27th, 2022, the Bench finished hearing arguments from all the parties and reserved Judgment in the
rd
a

(i
10

92

8
sk

a
18

10
nI

I)
ih

20

hs

case. In a 3:2 split, the Bench delivered the Judgment on November 7th, 2022 and declared that the Amendment and
85
rd

6
dn
(

20
a
8

(i
0

r
sk
51

I)

61

a
18

)9

EWS Reservations were constitutionally valid. Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi and Pardiwala wrote separate concurring
sk
dn
h
8

85
(i
0

ih
r
61

ka
18

)9

10

opinions for the majority and Justice Bhat wrote a dissent on behalf of himself and Chief Justice U.U. Lalit.
8(
0

hs
85

nI

06

1
2

85
d
)9

(i
0

On December 6th, 2022, the Society for the Rights of Backward Communities filed a petition seeking a review of the
ar
61

18

)9

0
I

k
dn

61
0

hs
5

I
dn
92

08
r

Judgment allowing EWS reservations. On May 9th, 2023, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud will lead a 5-Judge Constitution Bench
0
ka

92
r
8(
)

a
hs

nI

06

sk
1

to hear the petition and decide if there are any grounds to review the Judgement.
5
rd
(i

ih
08
ka
8

(
51

I)

61

18
s

dn
h
8

20

5
i
0

08
r
(
61

ka
18

9
I)

1
20

s
85

6
dn
ih

0
9

10

92
r
(
)

ka
18
nI

)
20

hs
5
rd

08
ka

(i
I)

18
hs

06
dn

5
i

92

08
r
8(

ka
51

1
s

nI

06
ih
08

rd

2
(
1

ka
18

)9
06