Back
Supreme Court Agrees to Urgently Hear Uddhav Sena’s Plea Against Speaker Om Birla’s Merger Decision
In a dramatic turn ahead of the Parliament’s Monsoon Session, the on Tuesday agreed to urgently list a petition by the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) faction challenging Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s recognition of six of its MPs unilaterally merging with the rival Shiv Sena led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Senior Advocate , appearing for the Uddhav camp, told a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that the Speaker’s order—passed late on a Saturday night—had paralysed the party’s functioning in Parliament and raised serious constitutional questions about the abuse of the ’s .
“This is an important matter.. Speaker recognises the merger of my 6 MPs to merge with the rival party. Speaker has recognised late Saturday night and it has brought parliament work for the party to a standstill,” Kamat said. Chief Justice Kant, sitting with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, responded, “We don’t know about tomorrow. But we will list it,” signalling the bench’s willingness to examine the contentious issue at the earliest.
A Midnight Merger and Its Travails
The face-off stems from a order by Speaker Om Birla, issued just before the Monsoon Session, that accepted the merger of six Lok Sabha members from the Shiv Sena (UBT) into the Shinde-led Shiv Sena. Following the recognition, the Uddhav faction was left with only three MPs in the Lower House, while the Shinde camp’s tally swelled from seven to thirteen, according to a circular from the . In a parallel move, the Speaker also approved separate seating for 20 MPs who broke away from the Trinamool Congress and announced a merger with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India, underscoring a broader trend of legislative party realignments through the merger route.
For the Uddhav Sena, the fallout was immediate and severe. “My functioning as a political party in the Parliament has come to an absolute standstill because the MPs are not with me. The Speaker has recognised their merger with some other political party. This was intended for the Parliament session,” Kamat argued. The party’s spokesperson, Anand Dubey, later said the Speaker’s approval had “weakened democracy.”
The Core Legal Quandary: Original Party v.
At the heart of the dispute is a long-simmering tension in the () between two concepts: the and the . The law, designed to curb , ordinarily disqualifies members who voluntarily give up their party membership or vote against its . Yet provides a safety valve: members are exempt from if their merges with another party and two-thirds of the legislators agree to such a merger.
Kamat contended that this shield was being systematically misused. “The six MPs decided to merge unilaterally without the merger of the . They just said ‘we have merged with the rival party’. They have joined a party we had contested against,” he told the court. The claim is that legislators bypass the foundational requirement that a merger must originate at the level of the , not the legislative group. In effect, a group of MPs can orchestrate a defection and label it a merger, thereby immunising themselves from .
This is not an isolated manoeuvre. Kamat pointed to a recent instance where Rajya Sabha Member Raghav Chaddha and six other former Aam Aadmi Party MPs joined the BJP by characterising their move as a merger, highlighting what he called a nationwide pattern. “Such ‘mergers’ were happening all over the country,” he said, describing how a device originally meant to safeguard intra-party dissent had “metamorphosed into a cover for .”
Judicial Pendulum: The Subhash Desai
The Supreme Court itself has already drawn a firm line between the and the . A 2023 judgment in clarified that the two are “distinguishable concepts” under the . defines the as a group of members belonging to a particular party, while construes the as the party to which those members belong. The ruling said the recognises the independent existence of a only to the limited extent of presenting a defence for members who back a merger initiated by the —not the other way around.
The Uddhav faction’s petition leans heavily on this reasoning. If the original party—the Shiv Sena (UBT)—did not itself decide to merge, then the six MPs’ unilateral declaration cannot trigger protection. The Speaker’s recognition, therefore, is alleged to have acted on a legally invalid premise, effectively permitting what the seeks to prevent.
A Wider Challenge: The Girish Chodankar Petition
The matter before the Supreme Court does not stand in isolation. A petition filed by Congress leader Girish Chodankar is already pending before the apex court, challenging a decision of , that accepted a similar legislature-party merger with the BJP as valid. Chodankar’s petition, argued through advocate , contends that “mergers of State legislature parties in Opposition led by the Leader of Opposition are not only a Constitutional sin but also amount to a direct attack on the democratic setup of an Assembly.” He has warned of “anomalous situations” where the is left at the mercy of the “whimsical musings of the majority members of a less conspicuous .”
Kamat reminded the bench about this pending case, urging the court to settle the question of law expeditiously. The convergence of these challenges suggests the Supreme Court may soon have to define the outer boundaries of the and decide whether Speakers can recognise a merger based solely on the say-so of breakaway legislators.
Constitutional Crossroads and Parliamentary Paralysis
The Uddhav Sena’s urgency is underscored by the practical shutdown of its parliamentary operations. The party’s ability to participate in debates, move motions, or function as a recognised group has been crippled. This immediate harm, combined with the larger systemic implications, likely prompted the bench to accord an early hearing.
Legal observers note that the case could test the extent of the Speaker’s discretion under the . While the Speaker’s decision on petitions is , the recognition of a merger may fall into a grey zone. If the Supreme Court signals that a merger must demonstrably originate from the —with a decision at the party level, not just among legislators—it could reshape the landscape of legislative defections across India.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to urgently list the Uddhav Sena’s plea is a tentative first step toward resolving a constitutional conundrum that has repeatedly disrupted legislative politics. With the Subhash Desai precedent and the parallel Chodankar case providing a rich doctrinal backdrop, the apex court now has an opportunity to clarify that the ’s is meant for genuine party amalgamations, not as a convenient cloak for political realignments. The outcome will resonate far beyond Maharashtra, shaping the boundaries of anti-defection jurisprudence for years to come.
