Shiv Sena split case: SC questions amended party constitution in symbol row hearing
The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the amended constitution of the Shiv Sena, saying it appeared to have made the party "virtually a one-person structure"
The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the amended constitution of the Shiv Sena, saying it appeared to have made the party "virtually a one-person structure", as it continued hearing pleas by the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction against the Election Commission's decision recognising the Eknath Shinde-led group as the "real Shiv Sena". The court said democratic principles should not be confined to institutions alone and that when institutions are expected to safeguard democratic values, political parties must also be examined on whether they function democratically. The hearing also saw senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Thackeray faction, argue that whether a party constitution is democratic does not fall within the Election Commission's remit. Read Full Story A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said, "Originally, the party (Shiv Sena) Constitution was founded on democratic principles. Subsequently, it was amended and became virtually a one-person structure." The Chief Justice added, "When we speak of democratic principles and institutions safeguarding democratic values, the question naturally arises whether a political party is itself expected to function democratically." Sibal said he appreciated the point that parties should also function democratically, but drew a distinction between constitutional institutions and political parties.
"Constitutional institutions perform constitutional functions, whereas political parties perform political functions. The standard of institutional integrity is necessarily much higher when a constitutional authority exercises its powers. A political decision can always be corrected. But a decision of the Election Commission, once taken in these circumstances, often cannot practically be undone," he said. He said that, at the highest, the poll body could have asked the party to amend its constitution. "We know of several political parties that have not held organisational elections for years," he said, asking, "Has the (Election) Commission ever held that their constitutions are undemocratic and therefore refused to recognise them? That is precisely the reasoning by which it refused to rely upon the 2018 constitution here." He added that institutional integrity lies at the heart of a democratic system and its absence destroys the very foundations of democracy. Justice Bagchi said the poll body itself had spoken about the importance of institutional integrity and referred to Dr BR Ambedkar. He said, "It repeats Dr. Ambedkar's observations and also refers to the view that defection is a constitutional sin. Today, however, it appears to have become a badge of honour rather than a sin...Dr. Ambedkar had said that however good a Constitution may be, it is bound to turn out bad if those who are called upon to work it happen to be bad." Sibal replied, "This is exactly our case." Sibal then challenged the Election Commission's methodology, saying it had gone beyond its legal mandate by treating the party's internal constitution as invalid and giving precedence to legislative strength over organisational support.
The BriefWire