Back
Hears Shinde Faction's Argument on for Symbol
The Eknath Shinde faction of the on Wednesday argued before the that the Constitution Bench’s decision in did not completely jettison the “” for determining which rival faction constitutes the real political party. The submission came in response to an appeal filed by the Uddhav Thackeray faction challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to allot the official party symbol—the bow and arrow—to the Shinde-led group.
, representing the Shinde faction, made the submissions before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana. The hearing focused on the interplay between the , the party constitution, and the criteria for resolving . Kaul contested the Thackeray faction’s assertion that the ECI had acted beyond its jurisdiction by examining the validity of the ’s party constitution.
The Under the
Kaul emphasized that the judgment did not erase the relevance of legislative majority when applying . “It’s factually and legally incorrect to say that said that in , legislative party has no mention and thus no place and can’t be looked at,” he told the bench. He clarified that the Constitution Bench had merely distinguished between the legislative party and the political party in the context of , not for the purpose of symbol allocation.
“Relying on , it says that is a relevant test under para 15,” Kaul argued. He further noted that the judgment recognized the importance of votes and legislative majority, and that to claim the test was “completely ousted and done away with is a complete incorrect reading.” He pointed out that the ECI order on the symbol dispute was passed before the verdict, and thus the Commission had not violated any . “Para after para in says ‘fashion the test as per your wisdom in facts of a particular case’,” he added.
ECI’s Jurisdiction and the Party Constitution
A significant portion of the argument centered on the ECI’s authority to examine party constitutions. Kaul submitted that since , the ECI has consistently directed all political parties to adopt . “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,” he said. He cited earlier ECI orders criticizing feudal and autocratic practices in some parties, and noted that the Commission had written to parties urging compliance with .
Turning to the ’s internal documents, Kaul argued that the amendment to the party constitution fundamentally altered the democratic character established in . “ at some stage came and said that our constitution does not permit elections. ECI persuaded and late Sh. Balasaheb Thackeray agreed to it and came forward… and an amended constitution () came into being, incorporating all principles of democratic functioning,” he recounted. The constitution, he claimed, was never registered with the ECI, and the only defense offered by the Thackeray faction was that they had “informed” the Commission. “ECI has given a categorical finding that we do not possess this constitution. It was never registered with us,” Kaul said, adding that the judgment itself directed the Speaker to look only at the constitution registered with the ECI.
Allegations of and Ideological Alignment
The Uddhav faction had contended that Shinde himself held a post under the constitution and could not now call it undemocratic. Kaul dismissed this as a misplaced argument. “This matter is not about against me as if I am challenging election to a post under the Constitution… this is about the test that ECI employs to determine who represents majority in the political party,” he explained.
He also addressed the Uddhav faction’s claim that the ECI lacked jurisdiction to entertain a dispute absent a prior split. Kaul recounted that discontent had been brewing within the party after the Uddhav-led faction aligned with parties ideologically opposed to the ’s core philosophy. “Dissents don’t happen overnight. Ultimately, people said this can’t go on and resolution said you have an autocratic setup, no one can voice any concern. It was then that a petition under para 15 was made to ECI to say that there is a and we represent the real ,” he stated.
Significance of the Post of
Kaul also clarified that the post of (party chief) was not a creation of the constitution but had existed earlier, frozen in memory of the late Balasaheb Thackeray. He argued that the constitution did not introduce any new position; rather, it sought to concentrate power in a manner contrary to the democratic principles that the ECI had mandated.
Next Steps and Broader Implications
The arguments from the Uddhav faction, led by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat, were heard earlier. The hearing is scheduled to resume on , with and Kaul expected to continue submissions on the symbols dispute, followed by addressing the .
The case, Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde (SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024), carries significant implications for the interpretation of the and the balance between internal party democracy and legislative majority. The ’s eventual ruling will likely shape how the ECI handles future factional disputes, particularly where party constitutions are alleged to be undemocratic. Legal observers are keenly awaiting the Court’s guidance on whether the can still serve as a primary indicator of a party’s true representative, even after .
