Uddhav Thackeray loyalists in Supreme Court on July 26 sought an urgent hearing of their application against Election Commission of India (ECI) proceedings on Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s claim for recognition as the ‘real’ Shiv Sena with right to the party symbol of ‘bow and arrow’.
In an oral mentioning before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat said the court should stop the ECI proceedings from going on. The apex court was already looking into every facet of the entire gamut of legal issues connected to the recent developments in Maharashtra politics, right from the breaking away of Mr. Shinde and his supporters to the resignation of Mr. Thackeray as Chief Minister, to the floor test, etc.
"They are claiming the party and the symbol. The Election Commission is going ahead with the proceedings when this court is seized of the issue…" Mr. Sibal submitted.
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for Mr. Shinde, countered that the apex court had only stayed the hand of the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker in continuing with the disqualification proceedings against certain legislators. The ECI proceedings were altogether different. The ECI had issued notice for hearing on August 8, several days after the Supreme Court hearing, fixed for August 1.
The CJI ordered the Thackeray camp's application to be listed along with the other Maharashtra crisis cases on August 1.
Loyalists of Uddhav Thackeray have alleged that the Election Commission did not pay heed to their request to stop its proceedings in order to avoid any irreversible changes while the court was seized of the case.
"Despite being asked not to precipitate the matter and stay its hand, the Hon’ble ECI has decided to initiate proceedings… Such proceedings will be in the teeth of settled law that an inquiry into a matter which is sub judice before the court amounts to interference with the judicial proceedings," the application said.
On July 20, a Bench led by Chief Justice Ramana had queried whether the dissent of Mr. Shinde’s faction, without subsequently forming a new party or merging with another, amounted to a “split” from the original Shiv Sena party.
A “split” from the original political party without a subsequent merger with another party or formation of a new faction is no longer a defence from disqualification under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution.
While agreeing to look into this question in depth, the apex court had asked the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker to maintain status quo on the disqualification proceedings against MLAs from both Shinde and Thackeray factions. The latter group was issued disqualification notices by the Speaker after voting against Mr. Shinde in the floor test. The court had directed the Assembly secretariat to keep its records in safe custody.
