Shinde faction ‘real Shiv Sena’: How the Maharashtra Speaker came to this decision

In a setback to Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker on Wednesday (January 10) declared that the faction led by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde was the “real Sena.” Rahul Narwekar also dismissed all 34 petitions seeking the disqualification of 54 MLAs belonging to the two rival factions.

What was the Speaker deciding, and why?

The Speaker was acting on instructions of the Supreme Court. In its May 11, 2023 judgement, the SC had said there were no extraordinary circumstances for it to act on disqualification pleas, which should be done by the Speaker of the Assembly.

The SC had said that the Speaker should decide which faction was the “real Shiv Sena”, while not basing his decision on a “blind appreciation” of which group possessed a majority in the Assembly. It also asked the Speaker to act without being influenced by the Election Commission’s ruling of February this year, which had recognised the Shinde faction as a political party.

Which three factors did the Speaker consider to decide the issue?

The Speaker analysed three factors — the 1999 constitution of the Shiv Sena, the leadership structure of the party, and the legislative party majority.

Why the 1999 constitution?

The Speaker held that the 1999 constitution of the Shiv Sena provided by the Election Commission (EC) was the only official constitution for determination of the “real political party”.

Also in Explained | What is the long-running legal dispute over Aligarh Muslim University’s minority character?

Narwekar noted that the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s submission calling for the amended 2018 constitution to be taken into account could not be accepted as it was not on record.

What did Narwekar say about the leadership structure of the Shiv Sena?

Narwekar noted that while the 2018 leadership structure of the Shiv Sena was relevant, it was “not at all in conformity with the 1999 constitution”, and therefore, did not provide a reliable answer to decide the dispute before him.

He said that only the leadership structure which is identifiable from the party’s constitution can be relied upon, and therefore, the 2018 structure “cannot be the yardstick” to determine which faction is the real Shiv Sena.

Why did the Speaker hold that Uddhav did not have power to expel Shinde from the party?

The Shiv Sena (UBT) faction had submitted that the 1999 constitution provided for the post of a ‘Shiv Sena Pramukh’, which was the same as the ‘Shiv Sena Pakshapramukh’ as mentioned in the 2018 leadership structure. The added that the post of Pakshapramukh was held by Uddhav, and therefore, his authority to expel a leader from the party reflected the will of the political party in case of a rift. Narwekar termed this “wrong and devoid of merit”.

He held that the Pakshapramukh’s power was “not absolute” and had to be exercised in consultation with the Rashtriya Karyakarini (national executive).

What did Narwekar say about legislative majority?

The Speaker held that which group was the real Shiv Sena was “discernible” from the legislative majority that existed when the rival factions emerged on June 21, 2022.

The ‘Shinde faction’ had an overwhelming majority of 37 out of 55 MLAs, and thus it was the “real Shiv Sena Political Party”, the Speaker held.

Where did the Speaker differ with SC findings?

The SC verdict had held that the Speaker’s decision to appoint Shinde faction MLA Bharat Gogawale, in place of Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Sunil Prabhu, as Chief Whip was ‘illegal’.

However, Narwekar, noted that as the Shinde faction was held to be the real Shiv Sena when the rival factions emerged, Prabhu “ceased to be the duly authorised whip from June 21, 2022”.

Also, while the SC had held that the appointment of Eknath Shinde as the ‘leader’ of the party was illegal, Narwekar held this to be valid.

What did the Speaker say on the Shinde faction MLAs’ disqualification plea?

The Speaker held that the allegation of the Shinde faction MLAs going incommunicado or untraceable (accusations of them moving to Surat and Guwahati) is not acceptable as no evidence or material has been put forth to substantiate it.

The Sena (UBT) faction had also alleged that the Shinde faction MLAs had deliberately remained absent in the Shiv Sena Legislative Party (SSLP) meeting called by Sunil Prabhu on June 21, 2022, and therefore should be disqualified.

The Speaker stated that Prabhu did not have the authority to call the said meeting.

Why were Uddhav Sena MLAs not disqualified?

The Shinde faction had also filed counter petitions seeking disqualification of Uddhav Sena MLAs. Dismissing the pleas, the Speaker held that the ground taken by them that the MLAs had “voluntarily given up” the party’s membership was “mere allegation” and no material was provided to substantiate it. He also held that the whip was not duly served to the UBT faction.

What next?

Uddhav Thackeray has announced that his party will soon approach the Supreme Court against the Speaker’s decision.

Thackeray’s petition against the ECI decision that allowed the Shinde faction to use the name ‘Shiv Sena’ and the election symbol ‘bow and arrow’ is still pending in the Apex Court.

For the latest news from across India, Political updates, Explainers, Sports News, Opinion, Entertainment Updates and more Top News, visit Indian Express. Subscribe to our award-winning Newsletter Download our App here Android & iOS