"Judgement will be prospective not retrospective," says Adv Siddharth Shinde on Nabam Rebia decision

New Delhi [India], October 12 (ANI): Speaking on the Supreme Court's hearing on the re-examination of the Nabam Rebia decision, Advocate Siddharth Shinde on Thursday indicated that the judgement on the Nabia Rebia would be prospective, not retrospective.
Speaking to ANI on the case, Advocate Shinde said, "The Nabam Rebia reference was listed for today in the 11th May Maharashtra judgement. The Chief Justice had referred the Nabia Rebia matter to 7 judges. Hence, after 5 months it was listed before 7 judges today."
"The Chief Justice in fact asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who wanted the reference, whether he wanted to still press it because whatever happens in the Nabia Rebia now is not going to affect the situation because whenever the judgement comes, it will be prospective, not retrospective," said Shinde.
"There are 5 prior matters before the 7 judges, this is the 6th matter, so now the date will be notified, and it will take some time, a few months for the matter to come up," he added.
"Thereafter Advocate Sibal will argue and then the judgement will come. So this Nabia Rebia reference which was a 5-judge judgement of the Supreme Court in 2016, has been referred to the 7 judges officially today and the result is awaited. It may take a few months though. That is the development for today," Shinde said further.
The Supreme Court on May 11, while hearing a batch of petitions on the Maharashtra political crisis referred to a larger bench of seven judges to consider the 2016 Nabam Rebia decision on the powers of Assembly Speakers to deal with disqualification pleas.
"The correctness of the decision in Nabam Rebia (supra) is referred to a larger bench of seven judges," A five-judge bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha said.
The court noted that it appears that some aspects were not considered in Nabam Rebia's judgement. Among them was, whether the temporary disablement of the functions of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule is prone to misuse by MLAs who anticipate that disqualification petitions will be instituted against them or by MLAs against whom disqualification petitions have already been instituted, the court noted.
The court also said that whether a "constitutional hiatus" in the operation of the Tenth Schedule ensues because of the temporary disablement of the Speaker was not considered in Nabam Rebia's judgement.
"To give quietus to the issue, we refer to the following question (and any allied issues that may arise) to a larger Bench: whether the issuance of a notice of intention to move a resolution for the removal of the Speaker restrains them from adjudicating disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution," the court said.
The top court said that the matter may be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
Pending the decision of the larger bench, the court passed various directions on the Maharashtra political crisis as an interim measure.
Uddhav Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena sought that the five-judge Nabam Rebia case be referred to a seven-judge bench for reconsideration.
In the 2016 Nabam Rebia case, the five-judge Constitution bench had held that the Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a resolution seeking his removal is pending.
The apex court was hearing arguments on whether the matter should be heard by a seven-judge bench or a five-judge bench. A five-judge Constitution bench was hearing a batch of petitions filed by rival factions Uddhav Thackeray and Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in relation to the Maharashtra political crisis. (ANI)