Shiv Sena (UBT) has moved the Supreme Court seeking a fast-track hearing on its challenge to the Election Commission’s decision favouring the Shinde faction.
NEWS DESK, New Delhi, 05-07:
A heated political and legal battle over the Shiv Sena identity resurfaced on Tuesday as the Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray-led faction sought an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court. The party has questioned the Election Commission of India’s move to grant the ‘bow and arrow’ symbol—historically linked with Shiv Sena—to the Eknath Shinde group.
“Urgency has arisen due to local body elections,” says Sibal
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the UBT faction, made an oral mention before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant, pointing out that the Court had recently permitted the Maharashtra local body elections to proceed.
He argued that since elections were imminent, the case needed to be listed urgently for hearing.
“Your Lordships have allowed local polls. There is urgency now,” Sibal said, as quoted during court proceedings.
According to him, the 2023 Constitution Bench ruling had clarified that legislative strength alone cannot define a party’s legitimacy. However, he said, the Election Commission based its decision solely on legislative majority—ignoring wider organisational and ideological factors.
The story has sparked fresh debate in legal and political circles. Readers can follow similar developments in our National News section.
Bench cites vacation and logistical limitations
Justice Kant indicated that due to the court’s approaching summer break, it might not be feasible to list the matter immediately.
Sibal pushed back, stating that he was relying only on constitutional principles already upheld by the top court.
When asked why the UBT faction couldn’t contest elections with their currently assigned symbol, Sibal replied:
“But he [Shinde] has the original party symbol. That makes all the difference.”
The judge responded that in the NCP faction case, an interim solution had been worked out, but such relief came with detailed safeguards.
Sibal argued that allowing elections to proceed before resolving the symbol dispute would tilt the playing field unfairly.
Justice Kant, however, noted:
“Let the elections take place smoothly. In local body elections, voters often focus more on candidates than symbols.”
Those unfamiliar with party symbol disputes can refer to our Legal Helpline section for more explainers on the legal framework behind party splits.
Symbolism still matters in local elections
Though the Court has not made a final call, Justice Kant did suggest the possibility of listing the matter during court vacations if the urgency was established.
The pending case, titled Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde & Ors. (SLP Civil No. 16/1/1-1662 of 2024), continues to highlight the growing constitutional challenges arising from internal party splits and the Election Commission’s role in such determinations.
For further insights into the political ramifications and court precedents, check out our latest video analysis here and explore the evolving landscape of Indian constitutional law through our insight pieces.
