SC Schedules Shiv Sena Symbol Case for January 21
The court has allocated three hours of hearing time for each faction of the two political parties
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday scheduled January 21 for hearing the pleas filed by the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction of the Shiv Sena challenging the Election Commission’s order that allotted the party’s name and the “bow and arrow” symbol to the faction led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that arguments in the Shiv Sena symbol dispute will start on January 21.
The apex court will also hear arguments in a similar dispute involving the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) on January 22, as several overlapping legal issues arise in both matters.
The court has allocated three hours of hearing time for each faction of the two political parties.
Earlier, on July 14, the Supreme Court had decided to list the case for final hearing, observing that the issue had been pending for too long and that uncertainty could not be allowed to persist. The Uddhav Thackeray faction has challenged the February 17 order of the Election Commission, which allotted the name “Shiv Sena” and the “bow and arrow” symbol to the group led by Shinde.
The Thackeray faction has also contested the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s decision to transfer the party’s name and symbol to the rival camp based on legislative majority, arguing that it violates a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court.
In January 2024, Speaker Rahul Narwekar rejected the Shiv Sena (UBT) plea seeking disqualification of 16 MLAs, including Shinde, from the ruling faction.
Challenging the Speaker’s orders in the Supreme Court, the Thackeray faction described them as “patently unlawful and perverse,” alleging that instead of punishing the defectors, the Speaker rewarded them by holding that they represented the “real” Shiv Sena.
The petition contended that the Speaker erred in concluding that the majority of Shiv Sena legislators reflected the true will of the party.
In his ruling on the disqualification petitions, the Speaker did not disqualify any MLA from either faction.
