Supreme Court Examines Party Splits in Shiv Sena Case
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India delved into whether a division within a political party’s legislative branch might influence its broader organization and primary membership. This judicial inquiry arose during the hearing of the Uddhav Thackeray faction’s challenge against the Election Commission of India (ECI) decision, which recognized the Eknath Shinde-led faction as the legitimate Shiv Sena, awarding it the iconic bow and arrow symbol.
The bench, comprised of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, scrutinized the arguments presented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of the Thackeray faction. Justice Bagchi highlighted the necessity to assess the existence of a party split, suggesting that such a divide could commence in the legislative wing and subsequently permeate the party’s organization and primary membership. Meanwhile, Sibal contended that a split within the legislative party does not inherently translate into a division within the political party itself. He referenced the Constitution Bench judgment in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order.
Justice Bagchi pointed out, “The Constitution Bench does not restrict the notion of a split to the legislative party. It also does not preclude the possibility of a legislative split evolving into a broader organizational and membership split, potentially serving as the epicenter of a larger division.” He further emphasized the importance of primary membership in a party’s structure, beyond just office-bearers.
The bench raised another pertinent question: Should the factual scenario for determining a split be frozen on the date paragraph 15 is invoked, or can the ECI consider subsequent developments before making a final decision on the symbol dispute? Sibal acknowledged the potential evolution of political disputes but insisted that a prima facie split in the political party is a prerequisite for the Commission to assume jurisdiction.
Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that if evidence established the existence of threshold jurisdiction, the issue might relate to an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, not its absence. Sibal focused on the evidence available to the ECI as of July 19, 2022, to substantiate a political party split.
More Read
Justice Bagchi remarked on India’s democratic context, to which Sibal wittily responded, “Absolutely. I don’t know how democratic it is, but we are certainly living in aspirational India.” The court proceedings are scheduled to continue on Thursday.
Background of the Shiv Sena Split
The Shiv Sena experienced a major split in 2022, with factions led by Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde emerging. Shinde’s faction approached the ECI, claiming rights to the ‘Shiv Sena’ name and symbol. The ECI, focusing on the legislative strength rather than organizational structure, reached its decision. It noted that while attempts were made to apply the organizational test, it was inconclusive due to the absence of an updated party constitution. With both factions presenting unsatisfactory claims of majority within the organizational wing, the ECI relied on legislative strength. The Shinde faction boasted 40 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) compared to the Thackeray faction’s 15 MLAs. Similarly, in the Lok Sabha, 13 out of 18 Members of Parliament (MPs) sided with Shinde, leaving Thackeray with only 5 supporters.
Consequently, the ECI ruled in favor of the Shinde faction, allowing it to retain the Shiv Sena name and bow and arrow symbol.
