The Uddhav Thackeray group appeals decision to recognise the Eknath Shinde faction as the Shiv Sena to the Supreme Court

The Uddhav Thackeray faction has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India (ECI) order of February 17 declaring

The Uddhav Thackeray faction has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India (ECI) order of February 17 declaring
the Eknath Shinde faction to be the legitimate Shiv Sena and allowing them to use the name “Shiv Sena” and the bow and arrow symbol as their party’s symbols.

The Uddhav Thackeray faction has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India (ECI) order of February 17 declaring the Eknath Shinde faction to be the legitimate Shiv Sena and allowing them to use the name “Shiv Sena” and the bow and arrow symbol as their party’s symbols.

Senior Lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi brought up the case before Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud for an urgent listing on behalf of the Uddhav Thackeray group.

But, because the topic was not on today’s mentioning list, the CJI declined to issue any instructions.

“Sorry. You have to come under the mentioning list. Come tomorrow,” the CJI said.

The Election Commission’s order was passed on a plea by Shinde faction seeking decision on which is the real Shiv Sena – the Shinde camp or the Uddhav Thackeray camp.

“The party name ‘Shiv Sena’ and the party symbol ‘bow and arrow’ will be retained by the petitioner faction,” the order had said.

The ECI had passed the following directions:

• The petitioner’s name, “Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena,” and its emblem, “Two Swords and Shield,” which were granted by interim order on October 11, 22, in this disagreement matter, will now be frozen and will not be utilised;
• The petitioner is required to modify the party’s 2018 constitution in accordance with section 29 A of the RP Act, 1951, and current Commission on Registration of Political Parties standards, which include complying to internal democracy;

• The party name “Shiv Sena” and the party symbol “Bow and Arrow” will be retained by the petitioner faction;
• The respondent faction, which was given the name “Shivsena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)” and the symbol of “Flaming Torch” as per the interim order dated October 10, 22 of the Commission in this dispute case, is hereby permitted to retain the said name and the said symbol until the conclusion of the said bye-elections. These bye-elections are currently taking place for the 205-Chinchwad and 2
• Instead of relying on an organisational wing test, the ECI had relied on the strength of the party’s legislative wing to make its judgement.

The ECI said that this was the case because, despite trying to apply the organisational wing test, it was unable to reach a suitable result since the most recent party constitution was not on file.The ECI had emphasised that both groups’ claims of having a numerical majority in the organisational wing were unsatisfactory.

As a result, it had moved forward by relying on the majority test in the legislative wing.In the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, it was reported that the Shinde group had 40 MLAs, compared to the Uddhav Thackeray faction’s 15 MLAs.Similar to the Lok Sabha, just 5 of the 18 members of parliament supported the Thackeray group, while 13 supported the Shinde side.

As a result, on the basis of the foregoing, the ECI decided in favour of the Shinde group and permitted it to keep the Shiv Sena name as well as the bow and arrow emblem.The issue began when the Shiv Sena political party divided into two groups, one led by Uddhav Thackeray and the other by Shinde. Uddhav Thackeray was eventually succeeded as chief minister of Maharashtra by Shinde after the split in June 2022.

Read Also: the Shiv Sena name and emblem Uddhav mocks Amit Shah on the EC ruling regarding

The party name Shiv Sena and its emblem have been claimed by both the Thackeray and Shinde factions.The highest court is currently hearing a different set of petitions on the political crisis in 2022 that resulted in a change of government in the Western State.

The Court is debating a number of issues in that case, including the authority of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Governor of a State, as well as the extent of the Speaker’s participation in starting disqualification procedures against MLAs.