Uddhav Thackeray faction gets relief from Supreme Court

The Bench, headed by CJI Ramana, asked ECI to hold action on Shinde’s claim over party and symbol

A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on August 4 said it would decide, likely by August 8, the question of referring the battle between Uddhav Thackeray and Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde over the "real" Shiv Sena to a Constitution Bench.

Meanwhile, the three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana requested the Election Commission of India (ECI) to desist from taking any precipitate action on Mr. Shinde's claim over the party and its symbol of bow and arrow.

The ECI, represented by senior advocate Arvind Datar, argued that disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution did not affect the poll body's power to decide rival claims over a party.

The court however asked the ECI to give a reasonable adjournment when the case came up for hearing before it on August 8. The Thackeray loyalists had earlier moved the Supreme Court against the ECI proceedings.

They had urged the court to direct the ECI to halt its proceedings. They had argued that the apex court was already looking into every facet of the entire gamut of legal issues connected to the recent developments in Maharashtra politics, right from the breaking away of Mr. Shinde and his supporters to the resignation of Mr. Thackeray as Chief Minister to the floor test, etc.

If the case is referred to a Constitution Bench, one of the cardinal issues, as pointed out by the CJI, would be whether the dissent of Mr. Shinde’s faction, without subsequently forming a new party or merging with another, amounted to a “split” from the original Shiv Sena party.

A “split” from the original political party without a subsequent merger with another party or formation of a new faction was no longer a defence from disqualification under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution.

While agreeing to look into this question in depth, the apex court had, on July 20, asked the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker to maintain status quo on the disqualification proceedings against MLAs from both Shinde- and Thackeray factions. The latter group was issued disqualification notices by the Speaker after voting against Mr. Shinde in the floor test. The court had also directed the Assembly secretariat to keep its records in safe custody.