The Supreme Court of India has raised significant questions regarding the use of legislative majority as a determining factor in the ongoing Shiv Sena symbol dispute. The case, which has attracted substantial attention, was reviewed by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
Key Observations from the Bench
During the proceedings, Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted a crucial aspect of modern electoral behavior, questioning whether voters primarily support political parties rather than individual representatives. This perspective calls into question the legitimacy of votes cast for legislators who subsequently switch party allegiance post-election. Justice Bagchi asked whether the support for such legislators can accurately be deemed as backing for their new political affiliation.
Judicial Review of Election Commission’s Decision
The Court further scrutinized the decision-making process of the Election Commission of India (ECI), which had awarded the Shiv Sena party name and symbol to the faction led by Eknath Shinde. Justice Bagchi emphasized the importance of judicial review in assessing whether the ECI exercised its discretion comprehensively and considered all potential outcomes. However, he clarified that the Court would not replace the poll body’s discretion with its own.
Arguments from the Shinde Faction
Representing the Shinde faction, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul defended the ECI’s reliance on legislative strength. He noted that the Commission considered factors such as vote shares and the strength of rival factions in both Parliament and the Maharashtra Assembly. Kaul highlighted that 40 MLAs supporting the Shinde faction had secured approximately 76% of the votes polled for Shiv Sena’s 55 winning MLAs in the 2019 Assembly elections. Furthermore, 13 MPs backing the Shinde faction garnered about 73% of the votes for the party’s 18 elected MPs.
Kaul contended that the Constitution Bench’s ruling in Subhash Desai does not prohibit the legislative-majority test, even when disqualification proceedings are pending. He argued that the ruling merely acknowledges that the test could become diluted under such circumstances.
Disqualification Proceedings and Alternative Options
Justice Bagchi, however, emphasized the relevance of ongoing disqualification proceedings, pointing out that they cannot be dismissed as unrelated. He also noted that the judgment in Subhash Desai was not available at the time of the ECI’s decision on the symbol dispute. Justice Bagchi referenced the possibility, discussed during the hearing, of allowing the rival factions to continue with separate symbols instead of awarding the reserved symbol to one side.
He clarified that exploring this third option was not the only possibility but stressed the broader implications of the Court’s examination of the legal position in this dispute. The hearing is set to continue into the following week.
Background of the Shiv Sena Split
The Shiv Sena, a prominent political party in Maharashtra, split into two factions in 2022—one led by Uddhav Thackeray and the other by Eknath Shinde. The Shinde-led faction petitioned the ECI, staking its claim to the ‘Shiv Sena’ name and the iconic bow and arrow symbol.
More Read
The ECI based its decision on the legislative wing’s strength rather than the organizational wing, citing an inability to reach a satisfactory conclusion using the latter due to the absence of the party’s latest constitution. It found the Shinde faction to have a majority with 40 MLAs compared to the Thackeray faction’s 15 MLAs. In the Lok Sabha, 13 out of 18 MPs supported the Shinde faction, leading the ECI to rule in its favor, allowing it to retain the Shiv Sena name and symbol.
