Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta told the Supreme Court that the challenge seeking disqualification of Eknath Shinde faction MLAs has become infructuous after the expiry of the 14th Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The Uddhav Thackeray faction has sought a declaration with consequences for the connected Shiv Sena symbol dispute.
New Delhi: Can a court declare legislators disqualified from an Assembly whose term has ended? That question was at the centre of submissions made for the Eknath Shinde faction before the Supreme Court on October 28 in the dispute arising from the split in the Shiv Sena.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard arguments in Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde, which challenges the Maharashtra Speaker’s January 2024 refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Shinde faction under the Tenth Schedule.
The connected challenge by Uddhav Thackeray to the Election Commission of India’s decision recognising the Shinde faction as Shiv Sena and allotting it the bow-and-arrow symbol is also before the Bench. The Court has not decided the issues raised in the arguments.
ALSO READ: “Can We Disqualify Shinde?”: Supreme Court’s Key Question In Shiv Sena Case
Shinde Faction Says No Effective Relief Can Be Granted
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, for the Shinde side, submitted that membership of the 14th Assembly ended when its term expired under Article 172 of the Constitution. In his submission, a court cannot now grant relief disqualifying the respondents from that former Assembly.
His argument concerns membership of the previous House. The expiry of that term does not mean that a legislator who was subsequently re-elected ceased to be a member of the new Assembly.
Mehta argued that the Speaker’s role under the Tenth Schedule is to decide whether a member is disqualified, and does not extend to granting a standalone declaration about a person’s past membership after the House’s term has ended.
Relying on Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, he submitted that the Speaker acts as a tribunal under the anti-defection framework and that the Court’s judicial review cannot provide a remedy beyond the authority available to the Speaker.
The Relation-Back Argument
The proposed declaration has significance beyond the former Assembly. As Mehta described the opposing case, the Thackeray faction seeks a declaration that the legislators were disqualified from the date of their alleged defection. It contends that such a finding would affect the legislative strength relied on by the Election Commission in the separate party-name and symbol dispute.
At an earlier hearing, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the Thackeray faction, argued that a declaration of disqualification would relate back to the relevant date. He maintained that the Court could grant consequential relief if the Speaker’s decision was found legally unsustainable.
The Bench had earlier questioned whether judicial review permits the Court to declare disqualification itself or whether it should set aside an erroneous decision and remit the matter to the Speaker. These questions remain to be determined.
Precedents And Limits Of Judicial Review
Mehta relied on Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra for his submission that an infirm Speaker’s decision would ordinarily be sent back for reconsideration. He distinguished Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, where the Supreme Court decided disqualification because a remand would have made the exercise ineffective given the approaching end of the Assembly’s term.
He also distinguished cases involving resignation from the House, arguing that the present situation arose from the expiry of the Assembly’s term by operation of law. His submissions do not amount to a judicial finding that the challenge has become infructuous.
Maninder Singh Defends Election Commission’s Symbol Decision
On the connected party-name and symbol issue, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, also appearing for the Shinde faction, defended the Election Commission’s reliance on legislative support. He argued that alleged deficiencies in the party’s internal election process made an organisational-majority test unsuitable in the circumstances.
Singh submitted that organisational support cannot be assessed mechanically where party office-bearers are nominated and internal elections have not been held. He also referred to the legal framework for registered political parties and the Election Symbols Order, including Paragraph 15, which governs disputes between rival sections of a recognised party.
He argued that elections had since been contested under the Commission’s arrangement and that the symbol dispute should not remain open indefinitely. The Thackeray faction contests the Commission’s recognition of the Shinde group.
How The Dispute Reached The Supreme Court
The proceedings stem from the June 2022 split, when Eknath Shinde led a group of Shiv Sena MLAs against then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. The dispute led to rival disqualification petitions and competing claims over the party.
In May 2023, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in Subhash Desai directed the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions. On January 10, 2024, Speaker Rahul Narwekar declined to disqualify members of either faction. Sunil Prabhu challenged the decision concerning the Shinde group.
A separate challenge concerns the Election Commission’s February 2023 decision recognising the Shinde faction and granting it the party name and symbol. Although the two matters are connected, the disqualification challenge and the symbol dispute involve distinct decisions and legal questions.
Why The Case Matters
The outcome could clarify what remedies remain available when a challenge to a Speaker’s disqualification decision outlives the Assembly to which it relates. It also raises the question of how, if at all, a finding on alleged defection could affect an Election Commission decision based on competing claims to a party’s identity and symbol.
The submissions are contested. The Court has not yet ruled that the disqualification challenge is infructuous or decided whether the Election Commission’s order should be disturbed.
Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde & Ors., and connected matter
Case Number: SLP(C) Nos. 1644–1662 of 2024; connected SLP(C) No. 3997 of 2023
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Hearing: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Dhruv Mehta and Maninder Singh for the Shinde faction
