A day after Maharashtra Legislative office approached President Ram Nath Kovind demanding him to use his constitutional powers and refer the three-bench Supreme Court judgement on revoking suspension of 12 MLAs of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), to the constitutional bench to clarify doubts over the interference of judiciary into legislative business, the party on Saturday claimed that time has lapsed, opportunity is gone and the demand is invalid.
“When the petition was being heard in the Supreme Court, the court had asked the Maharashtra Legislature to present its case. But at that time, the Legislature had stated that it will not present its stand and did not take any stance. And now they have missed the boat and have lost their right to make such a demand,” said BJP MLA Ashish Shelar, who was among the 12 MLAs who were suspended by the assembly.
Mr. Shelar said that the apex court in its interim order, had asked MLAs to go to the Legislature seeking withdrawal of the suspension. “We made an application to this effect, but no action was initiated during the Assembly session. A hearing was held after the conclusion of the session, which was of no use. The Supreme Court had not only given the MLAs an opportunity but had also asked the Legislature to put forth its stance. But they failed to make the best of the opportunity. And hence their claim that the court is interfering in the matters of the Legislature does not make sense as the court had given them the opportunity,” he said.
On Friday, the three office-bearers of the Maharashtra legislature, namely legislative council chairman Ramraje Naik-Nimbalkar, deputy chairman Neelam Gorhe and deputy speaker of the legislative assembly Narhari Zirwal met Mr. Kovind, who is on his four-day Maharashtra tour, to submit a demand asking him to use his constitutional power and refer the three-bench judgment to the larger bench to bring ultimate clarity.
“The decision to suspend MLAs was taken through a resolution by the assembly, which was overturned by the court. It is important that the constitutional bench decides on this interference,” Mr. Naik-Nimbalkar had said.
