Archive · 7 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Questions Shiv Sena Symbol Ruling’s Future
The Supreme Court is considering a disagreement about which group is the real Shiv Sena.
The Election Commission gave the party’s bow-and-arrow symbol to the group led by Eknath Shinde.
Uddhav Thackeray is challenging that decision.
Some Shiv Sena lawmakers were the subject of requests to disqualify them, and the Maharashtra Speaker rejected those requests.
The judges asked whether the symbol decision might need to be looked at again if the Speaker’s decision is later found to be wrong.
A lawyer for Shinde’s group said the two kinds of cases are separate.
The court also discussed whether having more lawmakers should help decide which group represents the party.
No final decision was reported in the article.
The Supreme Court is hearing Uddhav Thackeray’s challenge to the Election Commission’s recognition of the Eknath Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena.
The court asked whether the Election Commission’s bow-and-arrow symbol allotment may need reconsideration if the Speaker’s rejection of disqualification petitions is found erroneous.
Shinde faction lawyer Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued that disqualification and Election Commission proceedings are independent and that disqualification applies prospectively.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether a later disqualification ruling could affect the faction’s continuing right to use the reserved symbol.
The hearing also examined whether the Election Commission could rely on legislative majority when deciding which faction represented the political party.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, hearing Uddhav Thackeray’s challenge to the Election Commission’s recognition of the Eknath Shinde faction.
- What
- The court questioned whether the Election Commission’s Shiv Sena symbol allotment could require reconsideration if the Speaker’s decision on disqualification is found erroneous.
- When
- Tuesday; the article does not specify the date.
- Where
- New Delhi, before the Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The court is examining how the Election Commission’s party-symbol decision relates to the Speaker’s disqualification proceedings and whether legislative majority can be considered.
Reconsider the symbol ruling if disqualification is overturned
Keep the proceedings independent
Effect of a possible disqualification ruling
Reconsider the symbol ruling if disqualification is overturned
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether the Election Commission’s symbol decision would need reconsideration if the Speaker’s rejection of disqualification petitions is found erroneous.
Keep the proceedings independent
Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued that disqualification and symbol proceedings are independent, and that revisiting the symbol order could create an endless exercise.
Use of legislative majority
Reconsider the symbol ruling if disqualification is overturned
The court examined whether legislative majority is an appropriate basis for deciding which faction represents the political party, in light of the distinction between a political party and its legislature party.
Keep the proceedings independent
Kaul argued that the Symbols Order prescribes no specific test, allows the Election Commission to choose one suited to the circumstances, and that numerical strength was upheld as relevant in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Petitioner
- Uddhav Thackeray
- Faction recognised by ECI
- Eknath Shinde faction
- Reserved symbol
- Bow and arrow
- Relevant ECI provision
- Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order
- Disqualification framework
- Tenth Schedule
- Shinde faction counsel
- Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul