In the Shiv Sena disqualification matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court on August 19, 2026, questioned whether the Court could directly declare Eknath Shinde disqualified as an MLA under the Tenth Schedule if the Maharashtra Speaker’s order refusing to disqualify him is set aside. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, was hearing a petition filed by Sunil Prabhu of the Uddhav Thackeray faction challenging the Speaker’s refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction.
Justice Bagchi posed the query to Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing the UBT faction alongside Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, asking whether the Court could 'declare him (Shinde) disqualified today' and 'assume the role of Speaker and hold him disqualified' despite the Speaker not having disqualified Shinde and Shinde having been re-elected in subsequent polls.
The judge drew a parallel to disciplinary proceedings where disproportionate punishment is awarded, stating that while the Court could quash such punishment, it could not impose it directly and must remand the matter to the competent authority. He extended this analogy to the Speaker’s function under the Tenth Schedule, suggesting that the Court’s role may be limited to correcting errors rather than stepping into the Speaker’s shoes.
Justice Bagchi further examined the temporal aspect of legislative majority, observing that while there is no dispute that Shinde had the legislative majority, the key question is whether he remained in the party when he assumed that majority. This reflects the legal test under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, which disqualifies a member who voluntarily gives up membership of their political party.