Split in legislature party does not amount to split in political party, Shiv Sena (UBT) tells Supreme Court Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction led by Uddhav Thackeray, argued before the Supreme Court on August 11, 2026, that a split in a legislative party cannot be equated with a split in the political party. The argument came during the third day of the final hearing on two petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) recognition of the Eknath Shinde-led faction as the “real Shiv Sena” and its allocation of the bow-and-arrow symbol. The petitions, filed in 2024, contest the ECI’s February 17, 2023, order recognizing the Shinde faction as the original Shiv Sena. The court is examining whether the ECI acted lawfully in granting the symbolic representation to the Shinde group based solely on a split within the legislative party. During the hearing, Mr. Sibal asserted that the ECI’s approach violated constitutional principles and misinterpreted legal provisions governing party splits. He emphasized that the assumption linking a split in the legislative party directly to a split in the political party is legally unsound. Referring to the former Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which outlined conditions for a party split, Mr. Sibal noted that the process required a prior split in the original political party. Only after that could a group of one-third of the legislators form a separate entity. He cited a previous judicial ruling that explicitly rejected the notion that a split in the legislative party alone could imply a split in the political party. According to Mr. Sibal, the ECI’s decision was influenced by communications between the two factions, including separate meetings, appointments of rival leadership roles, and disqualification proceedings against certain legislators. However, he contended that such actions pertain exclusively to the legislative wing and do not establish a split in the broader political party. The ECI, he argued, incorrectly used these interactions as evidence of a rival group forming within the Shiv Sena. Additionally, Mr. Sibal challenged the ECI’s dismissal of the Shiv Sena’s 2018 internal constitution, claiming it was undemocratic. He highlighted that members of the Shinde faction had previously benefited from the same constitution, thereby undermining their current argument. Even if the constitution were deemed undemocratic, he maintained, it could not justify transferring the party’s identity and symbols to the opposing faction. Mr. Sibal further questioned the ECI’s reliance on two judicial precedents to support its stance. He argued that neither of these cases endorsed the idea that a split in the legislative party alone constitutes a split in the political party. As a result, the ECI’s entire reasoning, based on the premise of a legislative party split, was flawed and should be overturned. If his arguments prevail, the implications would extend beyond the immediate case. The ECI’s assumption of jurisdiction over the “Symbols Order” based solely on a legislative party split would be invalidated, potentially affecting future decisions regarding party symbols and identities. The outcome of this case could reshape how political parties navigate internal divisions and how electoral authorities interpret the rules governing such scenarios. The court will continue deliberating on the merits of the petitions, with the final verdict likely to provide clarity on the legal boundaries between legislative and political party splits. The resolution of this dispute carries significant weight for both the Shiv Sena factions and the broader framework of political party governance in India.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
India
