Back
Supreme Court Hears Shinde Faction Argue ECI Bound to Award Symbol Once Real Party Found
The on Thursday heard the Eknath Shinde faction argue that the (ECI) had no option but to award the 's reserved 'bow and arrow' election symbol to them once it concluded they represented the . , appearing for the Shinde faction, pressed the case that the is a based on facts existing at the time of the ECI's decision and cannot be reopened due to subsequent events like disqualification.
The hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana is part of the ongoing challenge by the Uddhav Thackeray faction against the ECI's order recognizing the Shinde faction as the real and allotting them the party's . Kaul's submissions focused on the of the ECI's determination under .
of at the Heart of Supreme Court Hearing
Kaul argued that once the ECI, after applying all conceivable tests, concluded that the Shinde faction was the
, the
had to be allotted to that faction. He submitted that treating the symbol as a "
" that could shift between rival factions based on subsequent developments would do
"great violence to the Symbols Order and the object behind the Symbols Order."
"The principle of shifting stands can't be applied here. It will actually lead to chaos that at every stage if there's a change in decision, the symbol will keep travelling like a pendulum from one side to the other,"
Kaul submitted, emphasizing that the determination must be frozen on the date it was made.
He further argued that even if the ECI had adopted the
, the assessment would still have to be made as of the date of the decision.
"Three months down the line, a lot of those people leave and join another party. These issues have to be decided on a particular date and frozen, they can't shift every time a new decision comes,"
he explained.
Justice Bagchi Raises Hypothetical on Disqualification
Justice Bagchi posed a critical hypothetical: what if the faction awarded the symbol were subsequently disqualified? Could that be a relevant consideration to revisit the continuation of the old symbol or explore a of not awarding it to either faction? Kaul firmly replied that it could not. He relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in , arguing that disqualification and its consequences are prospective in nature.
Kaul pointed out that the Constitution Bench had contemplated such a situation: if the faction that received the symbol were later disqualified, the members who remained in the House would have to apply for a new symbol. The symbol already awarded would not automatically revert to the other faction. This, he argued, underscored that the is a that does not shift like "."
Legislative Majority Test Defended as Valid
Addressing the core of the dispute, Kaul defended the ECI's reliance on the —assessing which faction commanded the majority of elected members of the party. He acknowledged that the Subhash Desai judgment described the legislative test as "diluted," "weak," or "futile" in certain circumstances, but he stressed that the same judgment held that "no test is excluded" and that the ECI was free to fashion a test suited to the facts of a particular dispute.
"The test of legislative majority remains a valid test,"
Kaul submitted, arguing that the observations describing it as weakened could not be read in isolation. He emphasized that the ECI had examined the party Constitution, party posts, votes polled, legislative strength, political-party membership, and other relevant considerations before concluding that the legislative test was appropriate in the circumstances of the
dispute.
No : ECI Had No Choice But to Award Symbol
Kaul also rejected the argument that the ECI should have considered a —not awarding the to either faction. He submitted that neither faction made out a case for exercising that option before the ECI or the Supreme Court. Both factions had positively asserted that they represented the real and sought the for themselves.
Relying on the Constitution Bench's discussion in
Subhash Desai
on the importance of a
to a
, Kaul argued that withholding the symbol despite finding that one faction represented the political party would defeat the object of the Symbols Order.
"The moment you come to the conclusion, you must give it to one or the other,"
he said, citing
and
Subhash Desai
.
: or Reasonableness?
Kaul further argued that the ECI's decision could not be faulted merely because the Supreme Court might consider another test preferable. He submitted that unless the Court finds that the ECI's decision was completely perverse, mala fide, or influenced by extraneous considerations, it cannot interfere as long as there was .
"If the Election Commission in its wisdom considers all facts, that's another issue if your lordships come to a conclusion that it completely perversely applied our principles, but if your Lordships feel that there was application of mind and a reasonable, a plausible conclusion was reached by them (ECI), that is enough,"
he submitted.
Kaul also refuted the petitioner's argument that the ECI had created new jurisprudence specifically for the dispute by examining the party Constitution. He contended that the Commission had been insisting upon democratic structures in political parties for decades.
Implications for Political Party Disputes
The arguments before the Supreme Court raise fundamental questions about the of the ECI's determinations under the Symbols Order and the interplay between and subsequent disqualification proceedings. If the Court accepts the Shinde faction's position, it would reinforce that the ECI's decision on the is a that cannot be reopened by later events, providing certainty to political parties and the electorate. Conversely, if the Court leans toward the Thackeray faction's challenge, it could open the door to revisiting symbol allotments in light of changing political alignments, potentially leading to instability.
The bench reserved judgment, and the hearing is expected to continue next week. Legal observers are closely watching the outcome, which will have significant implications for the interpretation of Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order and the resolution of intra-party disputes across India.
