• • In May, a crucial decision by a five-judge Bench ruled that the Governor's action of ordering a floor test to assess support for Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray was unlawful, citing lack of objective grounds.
• • Another unresolved issue was whether a Speaker could handle disqualification cases while facing removal notices, referred to a seven-judge Bench.
• • In June 2022, a faction led by current Chief Minister Eknath Shinde rebelled against Thackeray, prompting him to issue 16 disqualification notices through the Deputy Speaker. The rebel MLAs responded with a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Speaker, which was dismissed due to lack of authenticity. The disqualification notices were contested in the Supreme Court.
• • Before a floor test could take place as ordered by the Governor, Thackeray resigned. Shinde was then invited to form the government by the Governor. However, the legality of this invitation and the election of a new Speaker were challenged in the Supreme Court by Subhash Desai, the then General Secretary of Thackeray's faction.

• 1. Legality of the Governor's invitation to Shinde to form the government.
• 2. Validity of the election of the new Speaker.
• 3. Resolution of the disqualification notices issued by Thackeray.
• 4. Delay in the Speaker's decision on disqualification petitions.

• • The five-judge Bench declared the floor test called by the Governor illegal but acknowledged that Thackeray's resignation was voluntary and irreversible. The Court held that though the decision of the Governor, to call Shinde to form the Government, was unlawful, the Earlier Govt. cannot be restored, as the fall of earlier govt. was, not related to the Governor’s decision and, voluntary by Thackeray.
• • The issue of whether the rebellion constituted defection was left for the Speaker to decide through proper procedure.
• • The Court also noted that the decision in Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v Deputy Speaker (2016) appears to have failed to consider the possible misuse of the direction—MLAs undergoing disqualification could simply file a notice of intention to remove the Speaker and thus stall the decision on their disqualification.
• • Despite directing the Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions within reasonable time, the decision is still pending.

The Supreme Court's rulings explored the constitutional processes and the role of the Speaker in deciding on disqualification matters promptly. The Court also acknowledged the potential misuse of its earlier ruling through which a decision of Speaker can be halted by initiating a no-confidence motion.