SUPREME COURT SEEKS RESPONSE ON SHIV SENA UBT PLEA AGAINST SPEAKER’S RECOGNITION OF SHINDE FACTION MERGER, DECLINES INTERIM RELIEF:

The Supreme Court of India has issued notice on a petition filed by the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) faction challenging the decision of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, whereby the merger of six Shiv Sena (UBT) Members of Parliament with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena faction was recognized. The decision under challenge resulted in an increase in the parliamentary strength of the Shinde faction in the Lok Sabha from seven members to thirteen members. However, the Court declined to grant any immediate interim relief at this stage.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. After hearing the preliminary submissions, the Court issued notice to the respondents, with counsel appearing for the respondents accepting the notice. The Court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing after two weeks, allowing the respondents time to submit their responses to the allegations raised in the petition.

Appearing for the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Advocate Kapil Kamat argued that the issue involved significant constitutional questions concerning legislative propriety, political morality, and the powers of the Speaker under the constitutional scheme. Kamat submitted that the six Members of Parliament, who had been elected on the Shiv Sena (UBT) party symbol, had allegedly chosen to merge with a rival faction without the existence of any pending disqualification proceedings or a legal occasion requiring consideration of a merger.

The petitioners challenged the validity of the communication issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat recognizing the merger, contending that there was no legally valid merger under the applicable constitutional provisions. Kamat also questioned the manner in which the decision was communicated, pointing out that the circular issued by the Secretariat had been signed by a Joint Secretary and did not clearly indicate whether an independent order had actually been passed by the Lok Sabha Speaker. According to the petitioners, the Speaker lacked jurisdiction to recognize such a merger in the absence of a proper legal basis.

Seeking interim protection, Kamat argued that the matter involved considerable urgency as any delay in adjudication could render the challenge ineffective. He submitted that allowing the recognition to continue would alter the political position of the parties and that the passage of time could defeat the purpose of the proceedings. He urged the Court to intervene immediately to preserve the existing position until the legality of the Speaker’s decision was examined.

Opposing the petition, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing along with Advocate Toshiv Goyal for the respondents, argued that the issues raised by the petitioners had already been considered and addressed by the Constitution Bench judgment relating to the Shiv Sena dispute. He submitted that the earlier ruling had rejected several arguments concerning the distinction between the legislature party and the political party under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Responding to these submissions, Kamat clarified that the present challenge did not concern disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, as no such proceedings were pending. He argued that the issue before the Court was whether the Speaker possessed the authority to recognize a merger of Members of Parliament in the manner adopted in the present case.

During the hearing, Justice P.S. Narasimha observed that the Court had already decided to issue notice and that detailed arguments on the merits could be considered at a later stage. Consequently, the Bench refrained from examining the substantive constitutional questions at the preliminary stage, issued notice to the concerned parties, and granted them an opportunity to file their responses before the matter is taken up for further consideration.