×

Uddhav vs Shinde: SC refuses to stay EC order on Shiv Sena name and symbol

Top court issues notices to Shinde camp and poll panel

Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stay an Election Commission's order recognising the faction led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde as the real Shiv Sena and allotting it the party's 'bow and arrow' poll symbol. 

"We cannot stay an order at this stage,” said a bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Krishna Murari and P.S. Narasimha.

The court, however, said the Uddhav Thackeray's camp can pursue other remedies of law if any action is taken which is not based on the EC order.

The top court issued notices to the Shinde camp and the Election Commission and listed the matter for hearing after two weeks.

It also permitted the Uddhav camp to retain the name Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) and the symbol "flaming torch" in terms of paragraph 133(IV) of the ECI order during the pendency of the matter. 

During the hearing, Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Uddhav camp, sought an “interim” relief from the court, saying the Shinde faction was taking over the party offices, property and bank accounts.

The court, however, said the case before it was confined to a petition filed against the EC order allotting Shinde faction the party's name and symbol, and nothing more.

In its petition, the Uddhav camp had argued that the Election Commission has erred in holding that disqualification under the Tenth Schedule and proceedings under the Symbols Order operate in different spheres and that disqualification of MLAs is not based on cessation of membership of a political party.

It also claimed that the Uddhav faction has an overwhelming majority in the Pratinidhi Sabha, which is the apex body representing the wishes of the primary members and other stakeholders of the party.

The poll panel has failed to discharge its duties as a neutral arbiter of disputes under para 15 of the symbols order and has acted in a manner undermining its constitutional status, the petition had claimed.