Eknath Shinde faction argues in Supreme Court ‘legislative majority’ still deciding factor for ‘real’ Shiv Sena

Chief Minister of Maharashtra Éknáth Šindé. File | Photo credit: PTI

Deputy Minister Éknáth Šinde’s faction argued in the Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 2, 2026) that the “legislative majority test” cannot be ruled out as a determining factor in deciding which rival factions in a political party hold larger numbers.

Appearing before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Shinde faction, said the Supreme Court had not ruled out the veracity of the test in the 2023 judgment of the Constitution Bench in the Subhash Desai case.

Mr. Kaul alleged that the Shinde faction split due to disillusionment with Uddhava Thackeray’s decision to join the Maha Vikas Aghadi political alliance with parties ideologically opposed to the principles of the Shiv Sena.

Mr. Kaul was responding to a legal argument raised by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Thackeray, that a split in a legislative party can never by itself mean a split in a political party and the Election Commission’s decision to recognize Mr. Shinde’s unit as the “genuine Shiv Sena” and award it the bow and arrow symbol was illegal.

The court was hearing petitions filed in 2024 by the Uddhav faction against the Election Commission’s order allotting the ‘bow and arrow’ symbol to the Shinde-led unit.

These grounds also challenged the Election Commission’s 17 February 2023 order recognizing the Shinde faction as the original Shiv Sena.

The party split into two rival camps after Mr Shinde, backed by 40 of the party’s 55 MLAs, rebelled and left the party led by Mr Thackeray. The political crisis marked the final overthrow of Thackeray’s government. Mr. Shinde allied with the Devendra Fadnavis-led BJP party to form the government. The Election Commission later concluded that Mr. Shinde was a “genuine” Shiv Sena and gave his party a party symbol.

In August, Mr. Sibal had alleged that such a “merger” orchestrated by a faction of MLAs/MPs was not dictated by democratic or ideological powers, but amounted to a bare-bones quest for power.

A senior advocate said it was time the Supreme Court looked into the “trend” of “coordinated and unilateral” shifting of loyalties by legislators of one political party to another, leading to the overthrow of elected governments in many states.

He questioned whether several legislators could unilaterally decide to “merge” with another party without the knowledge of the parent political party.

Published – 02 Sep 2026 22:15 IST