After Mahayuti’s landslide victory, BJP’s Colaba MLA Rahul Narvekar was elected unopposed as Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly for the second consecutive term.
In an interview with The Indian Express, Narvekar talks about his role in the assembly, assures that the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) will play an important role despite its low numbers, and reflects on the legal and legislative challenges that shaped his past tenure. , among other issues. Excerpts:
There is a growing perception that speakers tow their own party lines. When the number of opposition parties is so low, should they also be afraid?
I understand that there is a perception that the President is leaning towards the Treasury benches. However, there is no evidence to back it up. You should not judge this House by what happens in other states. One needs to look at a person and come to a conclusion.
I have made it clear in my first speech in the House that I will give equal opportunity to the Treasury and the opposition benches, even though there is a big difference in numbers, as the role of the opposition is important for the performance of parliamentary democracy. I request the opposition not to disrupt the proceedings and boycott or walk out. People send MLAs to the House to raise their issues.
If necessary, do you exercise jurisdiction to issue directives to the government on important issues?
The office of Speaker is important for the existence of democracy. The constitution has established three levels of government namely executive, legislature and judiciary. The Speaker’s office is a channel between the legislature and the executive and it cannot be used according to the convenience of either party. For the benefit of the people of Maharashtra, the President has the authority to issue directives to the executive and the bureaucracy. I will use this power if necessary. I have done it in the past.
What do you plan to do?
I would like to issue a white paper regarding the assurance given by the government. It will detail the assurances given in the last meeting and how much has been followed.
I have also made it clear that the House is the temple of democracy and the actions of the members should be in accordance with parliamentary democracy. I will give equal opportunity to the opposition so that they are not forced out.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has called for crowd control in the assembly premises.
Even in my last tenure, I said that the Assembly is an institution which should be strictly used for legislative work. However, we see party workers and people coming to the assembly to solve their problems. This is not the place to address grievances of ministers and MLAs. I am going to be very strict about this.
Apart from that, I can say that those who want to engage in political tourism should also come. There is no harm in that, but we have to put a system in place and ensure that they leave the building on time using the public galleries. I have installed an electronic gate access system, and entry and exit passes will be controlled by the Speaker’s office.
No party has the number to claim the leader of the opposition party. Will you give more?
The LoP is usually appointed by the Speaker and if any such proposal comes up, I take a decision based on what the Assembly Rulebook and other Acts of the State Government say, keeping in mind the precedents.
I have been hearing that Delhi has done it and Uttar Pradesh has done it. The Speaker’s office is an independent authority and is not bound or dependent on actions taken by other assemblies.
How do you plan to run the House?
As the ruling coalition has almost a three-fourth majority, the responsibility has been added to me to ensure that the constitutional mandate of the executive is not obstructed by the legislature. It will be my prime duty to ensure this.
The agenda of the House will also be based on the demands of the opposition and if there is no satisfactory answer, the issue will not be swept under the carpet due to the small number of MVAs.
Did you see legal complications related to Shiv Sena split during your first term as Speaker? What is the status of the cases?
Since the last Legislative Assembly was dissolved, the issue of MLA membership is incomplete in a sense. However, the court is still hearing the matter and its decision will determine how the anti-swamp law can be interpreted in the future.
In Shiv Sena’s case, the Supreme Court for the first time called on the Speaker to decide which faction was the de facto party, but it was required to do so retrospectively, meaning on the basis of the day on which the alleged party changed hands. So I had to decide on June 25, 2022 which faction is the real side. I was instructed by the Supreme Court in this regard.
I have also considered Schedule 10 of the Constitution and the Rules of the Legislative Assembly in making my decision and I believe that my decision is fully sustainable and the judiciary will uphold it.
How do you see the NCP (Sharad Chandra Pawar) issue? Is there any connection between the Election Commission and the Speaker’s decision on this matter?
In this case, there are two petitions. One is against an EC order recognizing a faction (led by Ajit Pawar) as a de facto party and giving it rights to use names and symbols. While the second challenged the Speaker’s decision on the disqualification of MLAs. Both are independent and the decision of the Commission is prospective in nature and not correlative whereas the Speaker is retrospective.
The case is still pending, what is your opinion?
This case is being heard not only to correct any mistake but also to ensure the correct implementation of the law.
I am not a (subject) party to this and now the court will decide. If they consider the Speaker’s decision constitutionally valid, it becomes the law of the land. If not, whatever the court decides becomes law.
What is your position?
I am confident that my order is in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court, rational and within the four corners of the law. So I don’t see any reason why it should be revised or amended.
Has the law been misused to fulfill political interests?
Schedule 10 (Anti-Swamp Law) is a very important piece of legislation to ensure that parliamentary democracy is maintained. Its use should not be misused. Inter-party disagreements or differences of opinion should not be a reason for invoking the provisions of Schedule 10 as it destroys the fabric of inter-party democracy.
Do you advise top BJP leaders to end ‘Operation Lotus’?
Political classes or individuals are attracted towards the ideology and working style of a political party, be it BJP or any other party. Why should they be banned? Schedule 10 is sufficient to take care of those who violate it.