Supreme Court to finish final hearing on Shiv Sena name and symbol by Oct 30; verdict likely around Diwali

The united Shiv Sena split vertically after the revolt led by Eknath Shinde in 2022. The political and legal battle that followed has now reached its final stage. The final hearing in the Supreme Court on the question of who has the right to the Shiv Sena party and the bow-and-arrow symbol is due to be completed this month. A verdict is widely expected by the end of October or before Diwali.

The case has been pending in the Supreme Court for more than four years. At a recent hearing, the bench indicated orally that the entire hearing in the Shiv Sena party and symbol case would be completed by October 30.

Next week, the Election Commission will present its side in court. After that, the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) party will file its rejoinder, or reply, and complete its final arguments. Once this process ends on October 30, a verdict is very likely before Diwali or soon after. The verdict will serve as a guide not only for Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde, but also for the future of defection in Indian politics.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued on behalf of Thackeray. His main argument was that the original political party and its symbol cannot be handed to another faction merely because it has a majority of MLAs in the legislature. He said the split in the party was limited to the MLAs, while the original organisation and lakhs of party workers are still with Thackeray.

Thackeray's party also alleged that the Election Commission recognised Shinde's party in violation of the party constitution. It was argued that neither the party's 1999 constitution nor its amended constitution had a post of "chief leader", so Shinde's election as chief leader is against the original constitution and illegal.

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul defended the Election Commission's decision on behalf of Shinde's Shiv Sena. According to Shinde's Shiv Sena, the legislature party and the original political party cannot be two separate entities, because the real strength of a party is visible there.

Shinde's side said that inner-party democracy had completely ended during Uddhav Thackeray's tenure and that autocracy had taken hold around the post of "party chief". It was also said that there is no evidence that any new party constitution amended after 2011 was officially submitted to the Election Commission. Its argument was therefore that, given the majority and democratic principles, the Commission's decision was entirely correct.

During the hearing, the court also raised some points. It remarked that on the question of the right to a party and its symbol, the "political party" itself, and not merely numerical strength in the legislature, must be treated as the most important element. When Shinde's Shiv Sena raised the issue of a lack of democracy in the party, the court clarified that it was not sitting there to give a final ruling on how democracy functions within a party, but only to conduct a "judicial review" of the Election Commission's decision.

The court raised the legal question of why the Election Commission decided on the party and symbol in such haste while the issue of the MLAs' disqualification was pending before the Assembly Speaker. The court has also asked why the Commission did not consider other options. The verdict is being watched across the country as well as in Maharashtra.