Symbol Row Heats Up: Supreme Court to Hear Shiv Sena (UBT) Plea on July 14 Amid Poll Tension

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

SC agrees to hear Uddhav Thackeray faction’s plea over ‘bow and arrow’ symbol dispute ahead of Maharashtra local body polls. “Question of peoples’ choice,” says counsel urging urgent hearing.

Symbol Row Heats Up: Supreme Court to Hear Shiv Sena (UBT) Plea on July 14 Amid Poll Tension
Symbol Row Heats Up: Supreme Court to Hear Shiv Sena (UBT) Plea on July 14 Amid Poll Tension

New Delhi: Today, on July 2, The Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT) group has again approached the Supreme Court, seeking an urgent hearing regarding the dispute over the Shiv Sena party symbol—‘bow and arrow’—as the local body elections in Maharashtra are expected to be announced soon.

On Wednesday, the matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran. The bench has agreed to list the case for hearing on July 14.

During the hearing, the counsel representing Shiv Sena (UBT) informed the court that the State Election Commission is likely to notify the local body elections shortly.

The lawyer emphasized that the dispute over the party symbol needs to be urgently resolved to ensure clarity for the voters in the upcoming polls.

On the other hand, the lawyer representing the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena group opposed the request.

He pointed out that a similar plea was previously brought before another Supreme Court bench led by Justice Surya Kant on May 7, and it was not accepted at the time.

However, the Uddhav Thackeray group’s lawyer argued that the Justice Kant-led bench had made it clear that

“the matter could be mentioned during the top court’s partial court working days”,

implying there is room for seeking a hearing now.

The lawyer further stated that this legal issue concerns

“the question of peoples’ choice”

and should be treated with urgency, especially since elections are near.

The plea also urges the court to consider an interim arrangement, much like what was done by the Supreme Court in the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) symbol dispute last year.

To recall, in November 2023, the Supreme Court had directed the Ajit Pawar-led NCP faction to publish a disclaimer in several newspapers, including Marathi dailies, stating clearly that the

“issue of allocation of ‘clock’ symbol was pending in court.”

This order was made while the court was hearing the dispute between Sharad Pawar and Ajit Pawar regarding the use of the ‘clock’ symbol, which is the official election symbol of the NCP.

Meanwhile, the larger issue of the local body elections in Maharashtra has also been under judicial scrutiny.

On May 6, 2024, the Supreme Court had cleared the way for holding local body elections that had been delayed for over five years due to a legal issue involving reservations.

The court had directed the Maharashtra State Election Commission to notify the elections within four weeks.

Following that development, on May 7, the Thackeray-led Shiv Sena faction had once again sought an urgent hearing before the top court to challenge the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s decision to allot the ‘bow and arrow’ symbol to the Shinde-led group.

But at that time, the Supreme Court advised the Uddhav camp to focus on the local body elections instead, with the bench reportedly saying that they should

“concentrate on local body polls”

for now.

The Uddhav Thackeray faction has consistently maintained that the Assembly Speaker’s decision to give the party’s official ‘bow and arrow’ symbol to the Eknath Shinde-led faction in 2023 was wrong.

According to the counsel, the Speaker’s decision was based merely on legislative majority,

“which was contrary to the Constitution bench verdict of the top court.”

CASE TITLE:
Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde & Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1644-1662 of 2024

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Shiv Sena

author

Hardik Khandelwal

I’m Hardik Khandelwal, a B.Com LL.B. candidate with diverse internship experience in corporate law, legal research, and compliance. I’ve worked with EY, RuleZero, and High Court advocates. Passionate about legal writing, research, and making law accessible to all.

Similar Posts