As the Shiv Sena symbol hearing continued, Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised a question he said earlier decisions had not considered: whether an elected representative’s original electoral mandate can still be treated as support for a faction he later joins after a split. He pressed whether the Election Commission had considered all available options, including declining the historic symbol to both sides, and flagged that the answer would affect similar cases beyond this dispute.
Resuming his submissions in the Shiv Sena symbol dispute, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul told the Supreme Court that the 40 MLAs backing the Shinde faction accounted for 76% of the vote secured by Shiv Sena’s winning candidates, that all disqualification proceedings against the faction stand dismissed with no stay, and that the pending petitions therefore have no bearing on the symbol question. He argued against making the two interim symbols a permanent arrangement.
As the Shiv Sena split hearing continued, Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether the Election Commission, finding all three tests problematic, could have denied the reserved symbol to both factions and let each establish its strength independently without drawing on Balasaheb Thackeray’s legacy. Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the Shinde faction, defended the Commission’s reliance on organisational structure. The matter is part-heard.
A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant resumed hearing the Shiv Sena split case, in which the Uddhav Thackeray faction challenges the Maharashtra Speaker’s refusal to disqualify Eknath Shinde faction MLAs and the Election Commission’s recognition of the Shinde group as the Shiv Sena. Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued that the split was in the political party itself. The hearing continues.
Defending the Election Commission’s recognition of the Shinde faction, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued in the Supreme Court that the Commission’s power under Article 324 lets it look past a party constitution on paper to how the organisation actually functions, and that an organisational majority resting on ad hoc appointees may not reflect the will of the cadre. The submissions are his; nothing has been decided.
