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.
Kamra told the Court that despite receiving over 500 death threats and requests for virtual questioning, the police were insisting that he appear physically in Mumbai for questioning. MUMBAI: Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash an FIR filed against him by the Mumbai Police for allegedly calling Maharashtra […]
In the aftermath of the Maharashtra election, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut criticized former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud for delays in ruling on disqualification petitions, which he claims led to the Maha Vikas Aghadi’s defeat. He accused Chandrachud of facilitating defections and questioned the legitimacy of the ruling coalition’s success.