Archive · 18 Aug 2026
Uddhav faction tells Supreme Court disqualification pleas must come first
Two groups in India are fighting over who really owns the Shiv Sena party.
One group is led by Uddhav Thackeray.
The other group left him and joined the Eknath Shinde-led camp.
The Election Commission, which runs elections, gave the party name and 'bow-and-arrow' symbol to the Shinde group.
Mr. Thackeray's group went to the Supreme Court to complain.
They said the EC should wait until a different decision is made first.
That decision is about whether lawmakers who switched sides should be disqualified from the Assembly.
A lawyer named Kapil Sibal explained that having more lawmakers does not automatically make a group the real party.
The judges listened but did not decide yet.
They will continue hearing the case on Wednesday.
The Uddhav Thackeray faction argued the Election Commission should decide the 'real' Shiv Sena only after disqualification proceedings against rebel MLAs are concluded.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the EC and Maharashtra Assembly speaker wrongly conflated 'legislative majority' with the 'political party' itself.
The faction said the number of rebel MLAs facing disqualification notices grew from 16 to 22 and eventually to 39.
The pleas challenge the speaker's January 10, 2024 decision and the EC's February 17, 2023 order recognising the Shinde faction, as well as the allotment of the 'bow-and-arrow' symbol.
The Supreme Court bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, adjourned after arguments remained inconclusive, with the hearing to resume on Wednesday.
- Who
- The Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena faction, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, opposing the Election Commission's recognition of the Eknath Shinde-led camp, before a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
- What
- Arguments on whether the EC's determination of the real Shiv Sena must await the outcome of disqualification proceedings against rebel MLAs.
- When
- Tuesday, August 18, the sixth day of final arguments; the hearing resumes Wednesday.
- Where
- Supreme Court, New Delhi.
- Why
- The Thackeray faction argues the EC and speaker misinterpreted the law by equating legislative majority with the political party, and that disqualification cases must be decided first so rebel MLAs cannot bypass the process.
Uddhav Thackeray faction
Eknath Shinde faction (backed by EC and Assembly speaker)
Timing of party recognition
Uddhav Thackeray faction
The EC should decide which faction is the real Shiv Sena only after disqualification proceedings against rebel MLAs conclude; if those MLAs are disqualified, their strength in the legislature must be disregarded.
Eknath Shinde faction (backed by EC and Assembly speaker)
The EC and speaker recognised the Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena based on its majority in the Assembly, without waiting for the disqualification outcome.
What defines the political party
Uddhav Thackeray faction
A 'split in the legislative party' does not automatically mean a 'split in the political party'; using legislative majority as the sole yardstick ignores the party's organisational wing and the leadership of the pakshpramukh.
Eknath Shinde faction (backed by EC and Assembly speaker)
The party's actual structure and its legislative majority determine which faction is the real Shiv Sena.
2018 party constitution
Uddhav Thackeray faction
The speaker exceeded his jurisdiction by disregarding the 2018 leadership structure of the Shiv Sena, a finding with no legal basis under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution.
Eknath Shinde faction (backed by EC and Assembly speaker)
The 2018 party constitution was not in conformity with the Shiv Sena's actual structure.
- Petitioners
- Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena faction
- Recognised faction
- Eknath Shinde-led camp, allotted the 'bow-and-arrow' symbol
- Supreme Court bench
- CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana
- Lawyer for Thackeray faction
- Senior advocate Kapil Sibal
- Rebel MLAs facing disqualification
- Grew from 16 to 22 to 39
- Speaker's decision challenged
- January 10, 2024
- EC order challenged
- February 17, 2023
- Next hearing
- Wednesday