Split in legislature party does not amount to split in political party, Shiv Sena (UBT) tells Supreme Court
A split in a legislative party can never, by itself, amount to a split in the political party and the Election Commission of India's decision
A split in a legislative party can never, by itself, amount to a split in the political party and the Election Commission of India's decision to recognise the Eknath Shinde-led unit as "real Shiv Sena" and grant it the bow-and-arrow symbol was unlawful, the Uddhav Thackeray faction told the Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 11, 2026). The assertions were made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Shiv Sena (UBT), before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi Mohana on the third day of final hearing. The bench was hearing two pleas filed in 2024 by the Uddhav faction against the poll panel's order allotting the 'bow and arrow' symbol to the Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde-led unit. The pleas have also challenged the February 17, 2023 order of the ECI recognising the Shinde faction as the original Shiv Sena. Assailing the poll panel's decision, Mr. Sibal said, "The assumption that the split in the legislative party means the split in the political party is unlawful and liable to be set aside." Referring to a paragraph of the erstwhile Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, he said it also had a similar requirement that the split had to occur in the original political party.
"Only thereafter could one-third of the legislators constitute a separate group. This issue was considered in a judgement," he added. The court had rejected the argument that legislators wear two hats, one as members of the original political party and another as members of the legislative party, and that the formation of a separate group by one-third of the legislators would itself be sufficient to infer a split in the original political party, he said. "The court held that there were two distinct requirements: first, a split in the original political party; and second, a group comprising one-third of the legislators separating from the legislature party. It expressly rejected the proposition that a split in the original political party need not be separately established merely because there was a split in the legislature party," it said. The same logic applies here, he said, adding that what the ECI has done is precisely what was prohibited in the earlier judgement. "The Election Commission relied upon two judgments to conclude that there was a split in the political party on the basis of a split in the legislature party. But neither judgment supports that proposition," he added. He said therefore, the impugned order, insofar as it assumes jurisdiction in the "Symbols Order" merely on the basis of a split in the legislative wing, is "unlawful and liable to be set aside".
The BriefWire