The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step in the ongoing political saga involving the Shiv Sena party factions by asking the Lok Sabha Speaker to respond to a petition challenging his decision to recognize the merger of six Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray faction or UBT) MPs with the Shiv Sena led by Eknath Shinde.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe convened on Wednesday to deliberate on the matter. While the bench acknowledged the gravity of the petition, it refrained from issuing an immediate stay on the merger. Justice Narasimha remarked, “We have issued notice. We will consider. File counter. After two weeks.”
The controversy stems from a decision made by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on June 18, which recognized the merger of six MPs from Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena faction with the Shinde-led faction. This move effectively increased the Shinde faction’s representation in the Lok Sabha from seven to thirteen MPs. The decision was formalized through a circular issued by the Lok Sabha, updating the party composition within the lower house of Parliament.
In response, the Uddhav faction of Shiv Sena has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the legitimacy of the merger. Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing the Shiv Sena (UBT), passionately argued that the matter raises critical issues of constitutional morality and propriety. He stated, “Six MPs chosen on my party symbol. No disqualification proceedings are pending. The question of deciding on the merger has not even arisen. Please have a look at the circular which was issued,” highlighting that the circular was endorsed by a joint secretary without clear indication of an order from the Speaker sanctioning the merger.
Advocate Kamat contended that the unilateral decision by the six MPs to merge with a rival political faction does not constitute a legitimate merger. He urged the Court for an interim order to stay the Speaker’s decision, citing the orchestrated nature of the events and the pressing urgency of the situation. “This whole thing has been orchestrated. There is grave urgency. Your lordships are well aware. All these processes get defeated by afflux of time. We are not on the 10th schedule. Speaker has no jurisdiction to pass order on merger,” he argued.
More Read
Despite the fervent plea for immediate relief, the Supreme Court bench declined to grant a stay at this juncture, opting instead to await further submissions and responses from the concerned parties.
