Shiv Sena Row: Supreme Court Examines Whether Party Split Occurred First
SC examines whether Shiv Sena actually split before deciding symbol dispute.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that the first question in the Shiv Sena dispute is whether there was an actual split in the political party, while examining pleas filed by the Uddhav Thackeray faction against the Election Commission's decision recognising the Eknath Shinde-led group as the original Shiv Sena. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, made the observations during the fourth day of the final hearing.
Justice Bagchi observed that a division could originate in the legislature party but subsequently extend to the broader organisation and its primary membership. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Uddhav faction, argued that a split in a political party cannot arise merely because of a division within its legislature party, citing an earlier Constitution Bench judgment. The bench, however, sought clarity on whether a legislative split could become the starting point of a wider organisational division.
The bench referred to the Shinde faction's support from 11 'Rajya Prabharis', noting that the position forms part of the Shiv Sena's organisational structure. It also stressed that assessment of a political party cannot be limited to office-bearers and must take primary membership into account. The judges examined whether developments beginning within the legislature party could subsequently manifest themselves in the wider organisation and become relevant to the Election Commission's assessment under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order.
Also Read: Govt Examines Whether Meta's Recommendation System Fits Intermediary Status
Sibal challenged the Election Commission's approach in determining whether a genuine dispute existed and whether the rival faction had exhausted internal remedies under the Shiv Sena's constitution. He also questioned the poll panel's assessment of the party's organisational structure and its description of the constitution as "autocratic". According to Sibal, the Election Commission effectively excluded the organisational structure from consideration and relied on the legislative majority to determine the dispute over the party's name and 'bow and arrow' symbol.
The senior advocate further argued that the Election Commission could exercise jurisdiction under Paragraph 15 only if a split in the political party existed when the dispute was brought before it. He also disputed the relevance of Eknath Shinde subsequently becoming Chief Minister as evidence of greater support for his faction, arguing that party members could naturally gravitate towards a person holding the chief ministerial position. The bench distinguished between the Election Commission having jurisdiction but applying the law incorrectly and having no jurisdiction at all.
The Supreme Court is hearing two pleas filed in 2024 by the Uddhav Thackeray faction challenging the Election Commission's February 17, 2023 decision recognising the Shinde-led faction as the original Shiv Sena and allotting it the party name and 'bow and arrow' symbol. The proceedings are expected to continue on Thursday, with the bench continuing its examination of the legal and organisational questions surrounding the party split and the Election Commission's decision.
Also Read: CBSE Three-Language Policy: Supreme Court Examines Definition Of ‘Native’ Language
