Back
Split Beyond Legislature, Shinde Tells Supreme Court in EC Jurisdiction Fight
The on Tuesday resumed final hearings in the high-stakes factional dispute, with the Eknath Shinde-led group mounting a robust defense of the ’s (ECI) decision to recognize it as the “real” and allot the party’s bow-and-arrow symbol. Senior Advocate , appearing for the Shinde faction, argued that the 2022 rift was not confined to a legislative split but reflected deep-seated discontent within the party’s cadre and organizational structure, thereby opening the door for the ECI to exercise jurisdiction under .
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, is simultaneously hearing a challenge by the Uddhav Thackeray faction to the ECI’s order, as well as Sunil Prabhu’s challenge to Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s decision refusing to disqualify MLAs of either faction under the .
The Core Argument: Party-Wide Discontent
Kaul’s submissions directly countered the Thackeray faction’s contention that the ECI had no basis to assume jurisdiction under Paragraph 15 merely because some MLAs had split from the legislature party. “Another argument sought to be forwarded is that when you went to ECI, there was no basis for it to assume jurisdiction and say that there was split in the party. Our case has been repeatedly that there was discontent in the party,” Kaul submitted.
He traced the roots of the dispute to the post-poll alliance with the and Party (NCP), which the Shinde faction claims was ideologically antithetical to the ’s core principles. “It was really the and which had gone to the electorate together to fight an election at that stage. The results came on the two jointly fighting an election. For reasons best known to petitioners, they completely opted out and aligned with party which are diametrically, ideologically completely opposed to the philosophy of ,” Kaul argued.
The senior advocate emphasized that the legislative split was only one part of a wider rupture within the political party. “It is enough that the split emerges from the legislative party and percolates down to the political party,” he said, dismissing the notion that a must originate in the organisational wing. He pointed to resolutions passed by the Shinde faction before approaching the ECI, competing claims to the chief , and rival petitions as evidence of dissatisfaction among the cadre.
EC’s Jurisdiction and Democratic Constitution
A significant portion of Kaul’s argument centered on the ECI’s authority to examine the of the ’s constitution. The Thackeray faction had contended that the ECI assumed a jurisdiction unknown to law by scrutinizing the validity of the party’s 2018 Constitution. Kaul defended the Commission’s approach, noting that since the 1990s, the ECI has insisted on democratic constitutions for recognized political parties.
“Reason is that if there is ad-hocism and if there is arbitrariness, how do we determine who represents the majority? Political party’s majority is a relevant test, that it must have elected members of overwhelming numbers. Because that is what represents the will of the cadres, the will of the masses,” Kaul submitted.
He traced the evolution of the ’s constitution, noting that the 1999 version was adopted after the ECI persuaded the party to incorporate democratic elements. “After that, suddenly in 2018, new constitution emerges. It completely alters the which 1999 introduced pursuant to ECI telling all political parties to do,” he argued. Kaul further pointed out that the ECI had categorically found that the 2018 Constitution was not on its records, disputing the Thackeray faction’s reliance on a letter from Anil Desai.
Distinguishing Subhash Desai and the Tenth Schedule
The Shinde faction also countered the Thackeray group’s reading of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Constitution Bench judgment in . Kaul argued that the Thackeray faction’s assertion that the Constitution Bench excluded legislative strength from consideration under Paragraph 15 was “factually and legally incorrect.” He clarified that the Bench’s distinction between a political party and its legislature party arose in the context of appointment, not the ECI’s power under the Symbols Order.
“Subhash Desai says under Symbols Order, seats and votes secured are important considerations for freezing a symbol and for a political party to get symbol. Relying on , it says that is a relevant test under Para 15,” Kaul submitted. He also distinguished the judgment in , which the Thackeray faction cited to argue that a split under the Tenth Schedule must occur in the political party. Kaul noted that Rana concerned , while the ECI’s dispute arose under a different legal framework requiring it to determine which rival group represents the recognized political party.
Implications for Political Party Law
The ongoing hearing carries significant implications for the law governing internal party disputes and the ECI’s powers. The Shinde faction’s argument that a split can originate in the legislature and percolate down could lower the threshold for the ECI to intervene under Paragraph 15, potentially empowering the Commission to look beyond mere numbers in the legislature. Additionally, the debate over the ECI’s ability to examine a party’s democratic constitution may set a precedent for how the Commission assesses organizational majority in future disputes.
The hearing remains inconclusive and will continue on Wednesday. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will not only determine which faction controls the ’s name and symbol but also clarify the interplay between the Tenth Schedule and the Election Symbols Order, a question that has vexed courts and political parties alike.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court deliberates, the core legal questions revolve around the nature of a , the ECI’s jurisdiction, and the relevance of democratic functioning in determining party majority. The Shinde faction’s defense, anchored in the idea of widespread cadre discontent, seeks to broaden the factual basis upon which the ECI can act. The Thackeray faction, meanwhile, continues to argue that the dispute was improperly triggered and that the Commission overstepped its bounds. With arguments set to continue, the legal community awaits clarity on these pivotal issues of party law and election regulation.
