Shiv Sena case in Supreme Court: Sibal calls defections 'constitutional hara-kiri'
The Supreme Court on Thursday began hearing a crucial batch of petitions arising out of the Shiv Sena split, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing
The Supreme Court on Thursday began hearing a crucial batch of petitions arising out of the Shiv Sena split, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) faction, arguing that the actions of rebel MLAs led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde violated the spirit of the anti-defection law and posed a serious threat to parliamentary democracy. Read Full Story A bench led by the Chief Justice of India () Surya Kant heard the matter and posted it for further hearing on August 4. The UBT faction has challenged the Election Commission of India's (ECI) 2023 decision recognising the Shinde-led faction as the real Shiv Sena and granting it the party's iconic "bow and arrow" symbol. The petitions also challenge the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker's decision refusing to disqualify Shinde and other rebel MLAs. 'CAN MLAs CLAIM THEY ARE THE PARTY?' Opening his arguments, Sibal traced the party's organisational history following the death of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray in 2012. He told the court that Uddhav Thackeray took charge of the party and led it into subsequent elections.
In 2019, Eknath Shinde became a minister in the Maha Vikas Aghadi government as a Shiv Sena leader. Sibal said suspicions first arose during the Maharashtra Legislative Council elections when some Shiv Sena legislators allegedly cross-voted. Shortly thereafter, 31 MLAs left Maharashtra and camped in Guwahati, signalling the beginning of the rebellion that eventually split the party. According to Sibal, these MLAs then passed a resolution removing then-party whip Sunil Prabhu and appointing Bharat Gogawale in his place. "Only these 31 MLAs passed that resolution. It was not a decision of the political party," Sibal argued. He said the resolution was sent to the Assembly Speaker, who forwarded it to the Governor, following which a floor test was ordered. "We asked how this could happen. They are only MLAs. Uddhav Thackeray remained the party chief," Sibal submitted. He posed a key constitutional question before the court: whether members of a legislative party can claim to be the political party itself and whether such conduct is consistent with the law. 'ELECTED ON ONE SYMBOL, CLAIMING ANOTHER' Sibal argued that the case strikes at the heart of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which governs disqualification on grounds of defection.
He contended that legislators who voluntarily abandon the party on whose symbol they were elected should face disqualification. "This is happening every day now. People get elected on Symbol A and later claim they belong to Symbol B. It has serious repercussions for parliamentary democracy," he said. The senior advocate further argued that the petitions have remained pending for years and that a timely hearing could have altered the political outcome in Maharashtra. "Had this matter been heard in time, the Shinde government could not have been formed," he submitted. COURT QUESTIONS DELAY ARGUMENT The Chief Justice, however, questioned Sibal's contention regarding delay and asked why the petitioners themselves had sought adjournments at various stages. Justice Joymalya Bagchi also observed that the claim that the government would not have been formed depended on two assumptions — that the litigation would be heard and that the final verdict would go in favour of the petitioners. Responding, Sibal said the law was clear. "It has to be in our favour. The Tenth Schedule is absolutely clear," he argued.
The BriefWire