Shinde faction tells Supreme Court Sena split went beyond legislature

The Eknath Shinde faction told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Shiv Sena rift was not confined to the legislature wing but reflected discontent across the party organisation and cadre, allowing the ECI to decide which group was the real Shiv Sena under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul defended the ECI's February 2023 order granting the faction the name and bow-and-arrow symbol. The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing the Uddhav Thackeray faction's challenge. Hearing continues Wednesday.

Written by AI from Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 16 Sept 2026, 3:07 am IST

Source

Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) · read the original report ↗

#shiv sena#supreme court#election commission#eknath shinde#uddhav thackeray

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

The Shinde faction told the Supreme Court the rift extended beyond the legislature wing to the party organisation and cadre. — Attributed in source to senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul for the Shinde faction.
The bench comprised CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. — Named in source; appears as reported detail of the hearing.
The ECI in February 2023 recognised the Shinde faction as Shiv Sena and allotted it the bow-and-arrow symbol. — Date and decision stated in source; no order copy cited.
Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar in January 2024 refused to disqualify MLAs of either faction under the Tenth Schedule. — Figure and date appear in source as background to the petitions.
The constitution relied on by the Thackeray faction was not registered with the poll panel, unlike the 1999 document. — Presented as counsel's submission in court, not as verified fact.

Written by AI from Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

The Shinde faction's argument is as much political as it is legal. By insisting the split ran through the party organisation and cadre — not just the legislature wing — it is defending the narrative that it is not a breakaway group of MLAs but the Shiv Sena itself. The Thackeray side argues the opposite: that there was no basis for the ECI to reassign the name and symbol. Whichever way the bench leans, the question of who inherits the Sena legacy returns to the centre of Maharashtra politics.

The party name and the bow-and-arrow symbol are not mere insignia — they are political assets tied to the Sena voter's emotional identification.
The "organisational split" line serves two purposes for Shinde: it justifies the ECI's jurisdiction and simultaneously asserts a claim over the cadre.
For the Thackeray camp, this is not only a legal fight but the moral ground it needs for any political revival.
Because the challenge to Speaker Narwekar's January 2024 order is being heard alongside, the outcome could carry wider implications for how anti-defection cases are handled.
Questions raised here — registration of a party constitution, ad hoc appointments instead of internal elections — are issues that could apply to many Indian parties, not just this one.

What to watch — Watch Wednesday's continued hearing for how far the bench is willing to probe the ECI's jurisdiction and the question of internal party democracy.

The court has ruled on nothing yet; these are one side's submissions, and the story does not establish where cadre support actually lies.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Shiv Sena split of 2022 produced two rival groups, one led by Eknath Shinde and the other by Uddhav Thackeray. In February 2023 the Election Commission of India recognised the Shinde-led group as the "real Shiv Sena" and gave it the party name and the bow-and-arrow symbol. The Thackeray faction has challenged that order in the Supreme Court, along with Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar's January 2024 decision refusing to disqualify MLAs of either faction under the Tenth Schedule. On Tuesday the Shinde faction argued before a bench led by CJI Surya Kant that the rift went beyond the legislature wing into the party organisation and cadre.

Key facts

The Shinde faction told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Shiv Sena rift was not limited to the legislature wing but reflected wider discontent in the party organisation and cadre.
The faction argued this made it open to the ECI to decide which group was the "real" Shiv Sena under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order.
The bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
The ECI's February 2023 decision recognised the Shinde faction as the Shiv Sena and allotted it the bow-and-arrow symbol.
The court is also hearing a challenge to Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar's January 2024 decision refusing to disqualify MLAs of either faction under the Tenth Schedule.
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the Shinde faction, said the ECI was within its jurisdiction under Article 324 to examine the democratic character of a party's constitution and organisational structure.
Kaul said the constitution relied on by the Thackeray faction had not been registered with the poll panel, while the constitution submitted in 1999 followed detailed correspondence between the ECI and the party.
Kaul argued there is no legal requirement that a split under Paragraph 15 must originate in the organisational wing; it can begin in the legislature and extend to the organisation.

Timeline

1999Shiv Sena submitted a party constitution to the Election Commission following detailed correspondence between the poll authority and the party, per Kaul.
February 2023ECI recognised the Eknath Shinde-led group as the Shiv Sena and allotted it the bow-and-arrow symbol.
January 2024Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar refused to disqualify MLAs of either faction under the Tenth Schedule.
Tuesday (hearing day)Shinde faction argued before the Supreme Court that the split was in the political party, not merely the legislature party.
WednesdayHearing to continue.

Who has a stake

Eknath Shinde faction — Seeks to defend the ECI order giving it the Shiv Sena name and bow-and-arrow symbol and the Speaker's refusal to disqualify its MLAs.
Uddhav Thackeray faction — Petitioner challenging the ECI's recognition of the rival group and the Speaker's January 2024 disqualification decision.
Election Commission of India — Its jurisdiction under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order and Article 324, and its February 2023 order, are under judicial scrutiny.
Supreme Court bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana) — Must decide the limits of ECI power in party-split disputes and the validity of the Speaker's ruling.
Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar — His January 2024 order refusing to disqualify MLAs of either faction under the Tenth Schedule is under challenge.
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul — Counsel arguing the Shinde faction's case on ECI jurisdiction and party organisational structure.

Why it matters

The case will clarify how far the Election Commission can go in deciding which faction is the "real" party — including whether it may examine a party's internal organisational structure and ad hoc appointments. It also tests the relationship between anti-defection proceedings before a Speaker and symbol disputes before the ECI, an issue central to government stability in states.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order lets the ECI decide rival claims of factions to a party's name and symbol.
Article 324 of the Constitution vests superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission of India.
The Tenth Schedule deals with disqualification of legislators on grounds of defection; decisions rest with the Speaker/Chairman.
ECI's February 2023 order gave the Eknath Shinde faction the Shiv Sena name and the bow-and-arrow symbol.
Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar in January 2024 refused to disqualify MLAs of either Shiv Sena faction.
The Supreme Court bench hearing the case: CJI Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

Mains framing

The Shiv Sena dispute raises the core question of what constitutes a "split" for the purposes of Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order: must the rift originate in the party organisation, or can a break in the legislature party ripen into a split of the political party itself? The Shinde faction, through senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, argues the ECI had material showing discontent across the organisation and cadre, and that Article 324 empowers the poll panel to test whether a party's organisational structure — especially where governed by ad hoc and unelected appointees — reflects the will of the cadre; it also stresses that the constitution relied on by the Thackeray side was unregistered, unlike the one submitted in 1999. The Thackeray faction's contention is that the ECI had no basis to assume Paragraph 15 jurisdiction merely because some MLAs broke away. Implications run wide: an expansive reading empowers the ECI to scrutinise internal party democracy but risks drawing it into contested intra-party affairs, while a narrow reading may leave symbol disputes unresolved. The way forward, as the source indicates, lies in the Supreme Court delineating the ECI's jurisdictional threshold and its interface with the Speaker's Tenth Schedule role; the hearing continues.

Key terms

Paragraph 15, Election Symbols Order: Provision under which the ECI decides which of two rival factions is the recognised political party entitled to its name and symbol.
Article 324: Constitutional provision giving the Election Commission superintendence, direction and control over elections, cited here to justify examining party structure.
Tenth Schedule: The anti-defection provisions under which a Speaker decides disqualification petitions against legislators.
Real Shiv Sena: The claim decided by the ECI in February 2023 in favour of the Shinde group, carrying the party name and bow-and-arrow symbol.
Legislature party vs political party: Distinction between a party's elected legislators and its wider organisational wing and cadre — central to the Shinde faction's argument.

Practice questions

Examine the scope of the Election Commission's powers under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order in deciding rival claims arising from a party split.
Can the Election Commission, invoking Article 324, scrutinise the internal democratic character of a political party's organisational structure? Discuss with reference to the Shiv Sena case.
Discuss the interplay between the Speaker's role under the Tenth Schedule and the ECI's role in symbol disputes when a ruling party splits in a state.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyBengaluru healthcare firm owner arrested in fake drug racket probe →

← All stories