SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Uddhav Thackeray – Appellant
Versus
Election Commission of India – Respondent


Table of Content
1. disputation of political party faction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments against the interim order. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of eci's jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. justification for eci's course of action. (Para 16 , 18 , 19)
5. dismissal of the petition. (Para 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral):

1. There is a split between members of the `Shivsena' is a recognized political party in the State of Maharashtra. One group/faction is led by Sh. Eknathrao Sambhaji Shinde [`Respondent No. 2'] and the other by Sh. Uddhav Thackeray [`Petitioner']. Both claim to be the president of the original Shivsena party, and stake claim to its poll symbol of `bow and arrow' [`the symbol']. In this background, before Election Commission of India/Respondent No. 1 [`ECI'], a dispute petition under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 [`Symbols Order'] was filed by Respondent No. 2 on 19th July, 2022 [`Dispute Petition'].1 Therein, claiming that he represents the majority faction of Shivsena Party, Respondent No. 2 has sought, inter alia, allotment of the symbol to the group led by him. Pending final adjudication of the D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top