Sharad Pawar, the leader of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), has sought an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision. This pivotal order by the ECI recognized the faction led by Ajit Pawar as the legitimate NCP, a move that has stirred considerable controversy and debate within political circles.
Also read- #BREAKING NCP VS NCP: Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s Verdict Out (lawchakra.in)
The urgency of the matter was underscored by senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who highlighted the imminent commencement of the Maharashtra Assembly Session. The advocate expressed concerns over the peculiar situation Sharad Pawar might find himself in, subject to a whip issued by Ajit Pawar. This scenario underscores the complexities and the high stakes involved, as Sharad Pawar’s faction has not been allotted any party symbol, further complicating their position. The advocate’s plea to the Supreme Court was poignant,
“It will be a strange situation, because of the ECI order, Sharad Pawar will be subject to the whip of Ajit Pawar, when the Assembly starts next week. That order is under challenge, it is identical to the questions of law raised in the other matter…please list it on Monday or Tuesday, because the session in Maharashtra starts at the end of the week..on the 20th…They have not given me any symbol at all, it is worse than the Uddhav Thackeray Case.”
The bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, agreed to list the matter at the earliest, acknowledging the urgency and the significant implications of the dispute on the political dynamics in Maharashtra.
The heart of the controversy lies in the ECI’s decision on February 6, which officially recognized the Ajit Pawar faction as the real NCP, allotting them the official ‘clock‘ symbol of the party. This decision was based on the criterion of “legislative majority,” with the Ajit Pawar faction holding a majority of 51 out of 81 legislators. The ECI’s reliance on the legislative majority test, despite other assessments such as the “aim and objectives” and the “organisational majority” tests not yielding conclusive results, marks a critical juncture in the dispute.
The rift within the NCP, which emerged in July of the previous year, saw a faction led by Ajit Pawar and Praful Patel aligning with the BJP-Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) alliance, leading to Ajit Pawar’s swearing-in as the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra. This move was contested by the Sharad Pawar faction, which filed petitions seeking the disqualification of Ajit Pawar and his supporting MLAs under the tenth schedule of the Constitution for defection.
The Maharashtra Assembly Speaker, Rahul Narwekar, played a crucial role in this political saga by refusing to disqualify MLAs from either faction, relying on the ECI’s order and recognizing Ajit Pawar as the leader of the NCP. This decision, dismissing five petitions filed by both factions, underscores the intricate legal and political challenges facing the party.
The Supreme Court’s intervention, requested by Sharad Pawar, seeks to address these challenges and potentially reshape the political landscape in Maharashtra. The court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for the NCP and the broader political dynamics in the state, highlighting the ongoing struggle for power and legitimacy within one of India’s prominent political parties.
