Supreme Court bench weighs whether legislature party split can reflect in Shiv Sena organisation

IndiaIllustration generated for this story · how pictures are made

Key points

A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant on 12 August 2026 heard the Thackeray faction's challenge to the EC decision recognising the Shinde faction as Shiv Sena.
Kapil Sibal argued that a split in the legislature party cannot by itself amount to a split in the political party, citing Subhash Desai and paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order.
Justice Bagchi said a split can begin in the legislature party and percolate into the organisation and primary membership, and the Constitution Bench does not bar this.
The bench asked whether the facts for determining a split are frozen when paragraph 15 is invoked or whether the Commission may consider later developments.
The Chief Justice observed that if material showed threshold jurisdiction, the issue might be erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, and the hearing continues on Thursday.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant examines whether a split in the legislature wing can percolate into the party in the Thackeray challenge to the EC ruling.

The Supreme Court on 12 August 2026 heard the Uddhav Thackeray faction's challenge to the Election Commission of India decision recognising the Eknath Shinde-led faction as the Shiv Sena and allotting it the bow and arrow symbol. The bench comprises Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana (LiveLaw; Bar & Bench). Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the Thackeray faction, told the court that allowing a party's legislative wing to split, claim to be the party and facilitate the installation of a new government would make a "mockery" of democracy (LiveLaw). He argued that a split in the legislature party cannot by itself amount to a split in the political party, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order (Bar & Bench). Justice Bagchi observed that while the existence of a split in the political party had to be examined, a fissure could begin in the legislature party and "percolate into the organisation and the primary membership". He said the Constitution Bench does not bar consideration of a split that starts in the legislature party and is later reflected in the organisation, calling it possibly "the epicentre of a larger split" (Bar & Bench). The bench also asked whether the facts for determining a split are frozen on the date paragraph 15 is invoked, or whether the Commission may consider later developments (Bar & Bench). Sibal accepted that a political dispute could evolve but maintained there must first be a prima facie split in the political party for the Commission to assume jurisdiction. The Chief Justice observed that if material showed threshold jurisdiction, the issue might be an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction rather than absence of it. Sibal said the key question was what material before the Commission on 19 July 2022 showed a split in the political party (Bar & Bench). The hearing continues on Thursday (Bar & Bench).