Two proceedings run side by side in the Shiv Sena symbol case, and Senior Advocate N. K. Kaul told the Supreme Court that the one before the Election Commission never had to stand still for the one before the Speaker. These are one side’s contentions; the Court has decided nothing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Arguing before the Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 7) in the continuing Shiv Sena symbol case, Senior Advocate N. K. Kaul said the Election Commission had only the party’s 2011 constitution before it, that internal democracy within parties is a settled constitutional concern, and that the symbol dispute could go ahead without waiting for disqualification petitions to be decided. The Commission’s recognition of the Eknath Shinde faction as the Shiv Sena, and its allotment of the party symbol, are under challenge [Sunil Prabhu v. Speaker, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and connected matters].
In the earlier hearings the matter was before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana; the account of Wednesday’s proceedings available to LawChakra records Kaul’s submissions only.
A petition filed is not a petition decided
Kaul separated the filing of a disqualification petition from its decision. A member, he submitted, keeps every right of a legislator until he is actually disqualified, so a petition that is merely pending disturbs nothing by itself.
He added that the Election Commission’s scrutiny of party constitutions is not new, and forms part of how it has long examined disputes of this kind.
The Commission was not made to wait
Earlier attempts to stop the Commission from deciding the symbol dispute had been turned down, Kaul told the Court. As he reads Subhash Desai, it does not oblige the Commission to hold its hand until disqualification petitions are disposed of.
He accepted that a Speaker’s decision can take time, but said the symbol dispute still needs deciding in the meantime. Holding that the Commission must await the outcome of disqualification proceedings would, he argued, go against the Constitution Bench and the rulings before it.
What was on the Commission’s file
On the record before the Commission, Kaul said the only Shiv Sena constitution it held was the 2011 version, and nothing showed that a later one had been submitted. The letters the other side relies on, he said, speak of party elections but attach no new constitution.
He turned to the Constitution Bench decision in Subhash Desai, which, as he read it, treats the party constitution held by the Election Commission as the document that matters, and to Arjun Singh v. President, Indian National Congress, which he said stresses internal democracy and regular party elections.
Disqualification only looks ahead
Kaul closed on the point that disqualification operates prospectively. A line from Rana, he said, was being read out of context by the other side and could not support the claim that the Commission had to wait for disqualification rulings.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Asks Shinde Faction In Shiv Sena Case: Who Gets Symbol After A ‘Constitutional Sin’?
What the hearing has and has not shown
The lead petition, by Sunil Prabhu, challenges the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s refusal to disqualify MLAs of the Shinde faction under the Tenth Schedule, while a connected challenge by Uddhav Thackeray is directed at the Election Commission’s decision on the party name and symbol. Everything above is the case put by Kaul alone. The Thackeray side’s response, and any observations from the Bench on these specific points, were not part of the account of the hearing available to LawChakra. The Court has expressed no view on the merits.
Case Details: Sunil Prabhu v. Speaker, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, with Uddhav Thackeray’s challenge to the Election Commission’s Shiv Sena order | Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice V. Mohana (as in earlier hearings) | Hearing: October 7, 2026 | Status: Part-heard; no decision. Submissions reported are those of Senior Advocate N. K. Kaul.
Appearances: Senior Advocate N. K. Kaul (Shinde faction, as in earlier hearings).