New Delhi, August 12: The Supreme Court heard the ongoing dispute over the Shiv Sena’s name and election symbol ‘Bow and Arrow’ between the factions led by Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde on Wednesday. Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal represented Uddhav Thackeray’s faction. The court announced that the hearing would continue on Thursday.
Sibal referenced Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, stating that any changes to a party’s name, main office, officers, or address must be reported to the Election Commission. “We informed the Election Commission, yet there was unnecessary controversy. We provided the names of the officials as part of our duty. They are aware of the changes, which is why they demand clarification,” he argued. He added that the communication clearly mentioned ‘Shiv Sena Party Leader.’
Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that notification is not required unless there is a change. In response, Sibal stated, “We have fulfilled all necessary legal obligations. It is convenient for the ECI to claim they do not have the latest constitution. They argue that all sub-leaders are appointed, but they are elected. The ECI does not even review the documents.”
He accused the rebel faction of unilaterally altering the position of party leader. Citing Schedule ‘A’, Sibal emphasized that the party leader must be elected. “The party is bound by a democratic process. Shinde was appointed as the Shiv Sena leader in the assembly,” he noted.
Sibal explained that during the party’s general assembly in 2018, 12 sub-leaders were appointed and 21 were elected. He presented a document dated April 4, which bore the Election Commission’s seal. “The proceedings from 2018 were public; the documents cannot be tampered with,” he asserted.
Justice Bagchi inquired about changes in the number of leaders in February, asking if the names of elected members were provided. Sibal confirmed that they had provided information on both appointed and elected members, along with the party’s constitution.
Justice Bagchi remarked that the Shinde faction claimed the document was prepared later. Sibal countered, “This document has the ECI’s seal. If it was prepared later, they should have taken action.”
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi stated, “The decision regarding the party’s split must be made under the Tenth Schedule. You must argue whether later events can be considered. The constitutional bench did not state that the division of the legislative party cannot apply to the organization. If you claim the ECI lacked jurisdiction from the beginning, then nothing can be examined. However, if jurisdiction existed and was misused, that is a separate issue.”
Sibal added, “If a prima facie case of division arises, the situation will become clearer. But what documents were available to the commission on July 19? What basis did the commission use to make its decision? Only two documents were available that day—one related to legislative strength and another from a meeting.”
He further stated, “Once you become Chief Minister, people will naturally come to you. This ground reality cannot be ignored. We believe he was made Chief Minister illegally. You cannot appoint someone as Chief Minister and then claim many people joined him later.”
The Chief Justice remarked, “If all these points are considered, it is inaccurate to say the Election Commission lacked jurisdiction. Their approach may be flawed. If the commission lacked jurisdiction, nothing can be examined further. If jurisdiction existed and was misused, that is a different issue. However, your argument is that the commission had no jurisdiction.”
Sibal responded, “The Election Commission stated we should have approached the disciplinary committee. What grounds do I have to expel Shinde? He expelled me, the party leader Uddhav Thackeray. The Shiv Sena party leader is elected. The supreme body of the party is the national executive. District heads and sub-district heads are appointed and implement decisions made by elected individuals.”
The Chief Justice noted that the term ‘Shiv Sena leader’ is somewhat ambiguous. Does it refer to the leader of the legislative party or the organizational leader? Sibal clarified that it refers to the leader within the organization. He accused the ECI of wanting to reach a specific conclusion, thus ignoring the 2018 constitution. “They had already predetermined the outcome,” he claimed.
Sibal also mentioned, “The commission failed to recognize the existence of a second constitution for 13 years. The commission oversees the formation of all political parties. Then they argue that this constitution is not on record.”
To this, the Chief Justice asked, “Who won, the father or the son?” Sibal laughed and replied, “The son won. I represented the son.”
Leave a Comment