Last Updated:
Sena vs Sena: “2018 changes took place in Shinde’s presence. After 2022 exodus, EC sent notices to original members, while person who travelled to Guwahati became CM,” says Sibal
Lok Sabha Speaker Clears Merger of 6 UBT Rebel MPs With Shinde’s Shiv Sena.
Does Shiv Sena have no post of ‘chief leader’? If Kapil Sibal’s arguments are to be believed, the post assumed by Eknath Shinde, who claims to be heading the ‘real Shiv Sena’, does not exist in the party’s 1999 constitution.
The Supreme Court is hearing the long-running dispute over the ownership of the Shiv Sena name and election symbol before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan.
The court is also hearing petitions challenging the Election Commission’s decision to recognise the Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena and petitions against Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s decision not to disqualify Shinde and other MLAs.
He questioned whether the commission could claim in 2023 that the party did not have a provision for the post of party chief when the organisational structure and appointments had been publicly known for years.
‘Eknath Shinde was around when changes were made in 2018’
Sibal argued that the organisational changes made in 2018 had taken place in the presence of Eknath Shinde and questioned how the same changes could subsequently be described as undemocratic.
He also referred to the political developments that followed the 2022 rebellion, saying that members of the original party leadership were issued notices while the person who travelled to Surat and Guwahati subsequently became chief minister, News18 Marathi reported.
Kapil Sibal questions EC
During the previous hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the Election Commission’s jurisdiction and argued that the identity of a political party cannot be determined solely on the basis of which faction has a majority in the legislature.
Sibal referred to Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act and said that, under the relevant provisions, political parties are required to inform the Election Commission about changes to their name, headquarters, office-bearers or address.
“What information did we provide to the Election Commission?” Sibal asked, arguing that the issue was being unnecessarily disputed.
Uddhav Sena communicated changes to EC: Sibal
Sibal said his responsibility had been to communicate the names of the party’s office-bearers to the Election Commission. According to him, the commission was aware that changes had taken place within the party and had sought information on them.
He also challenged the Election Commission’s claim that it did not have the party constitution from 2018. Sibal said correspondence submitted to the commission clearly referred to the post of “Shiv Sena party chief”.
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that if there had been no change, there would have been no requirement to report one.
Sibal responded that the party had provided all information required under the law. He argued that the Election Commission’s claim that it did not possess an updated copy of the party constitution was convenient for the commission but did not reflect the information submitted by the faction.
Sibal further disputed the commission’s assertion that all deputy leaders had been appointed, arguing that some had actually been elected. He alleged that the documents submitted before the commission had not been properly examined.
Sibal told the court that organisational elections were held on January 23 and that the Election Commission had been informed about them. He said the party had also previously provided details of the delegates who attended the meeting, said the report.
Appointments took place openly: Kapil Sibal
Sibal pointed to the elections of Uddhav Thackeray, Aaditya Thackeray, Manohar Joshi and other leaders to various party positions, arguing that these developments had taken place openly.
He also said the faction had documentary proof that information regarding changes made in 2018 had been submitted to the Election Commission.
According to Sibal, 23 people were elected as deputy leaders, while others were appointed. He said the faction had also informed the commission about the deputy leaders selected by Uddhav Thackeray.
“If the Election Commission had an objection to something, why did it wait for so many years?” Sibal asked, questioning the delay in raising issues concerning the party’s organisational structure and records.
The Supreme Court’s proceedings are being closely watched as the bench examines the competing claims over the Shiv Sena’s organisational structure, leadership and election symbol, as well as the constitutional and legal questions arising from the split in the party, said the report.
About the Author
At the news desk for 20 years, the story of her life has revolved around finding pun, facts while reporting, on radio, heading a daily newspaper desk, teaching mass media students to now editing speci…Read More
August 12, 2026, 19:25 IST
Read More
