Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Feb 22: Even as the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition from the Team Uddhav Thackeray challenging the validity of the Election Commission of India’s order allocating the party name and symbol to the rival Eknath Shinde faction, it refused to stay the operation of the ECI order for now.
With this, the Shiv Sena name and its election symbol will remain with Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s camp, and the “mashaal” or flaming torch symbol with Uddhav Thackeray for now, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, assuring status quo on the issue that has been the bone of contention since the split of the party last year.
Mr Thackeray had sought status quo on the Sena properties — offices and bank accounts — till its multiple petitions pending with the top court is decided. Besides the name and symbol issue, the group has also challenged the numbers in the Shinde faction, contending that a chunk of its MLAs deserve disqualification. The matter will be heard by the court after two weeks.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud did not budge when Mr. Thackeray pleaded that the Shinde faction, following the poll body’s February 17 order, had started taking over party offices, properties and bank accounts.
The court however retained the Election Commission (EC) direction allowing the Thackeray faction to keep the name ‘Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)‘ and the flaming torch symbol for the upcoming byelections in the Chinchwad and Kasaba Peth constituencies.
At one point during the hearing, Mr. Thackeray’s team of senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, Devadatt Kamat and advocate Amit Anand Tiwari said that they feared that the Shinde group, armed with the EC order, would issue a whip and even disqualify Mr. Thackeray if he did not comply with it.
However, the Bench, also comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, remained unmoved. Chief Justice Chandrachud reminded Mr. Thackeray that his challenge in the Supreme Court was against an order of the EC pronounced under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order of 1968. The question before the court was confined to the allotment of the party name and symbol. The EC order did not address issues regarding bank accounts and properties, he noted.
“They [EC] were deciding under the Symbols Order,”
Kapil Sibal told the bench seeking “protection.” “We don’t want our properties and bank accounts to be taken over,” Mr Sibal said, pointing out that the parliamentary office of the Shiv Sena was taken over by the Shinde faction on Tuesday.
“But tomorrow the Shinde group can say ‘we are the party’ and take over everything. They are doing that,” Mr. Sibal said. “If something is part of the EC order, we can certainly look at that… All this [bank accounts and properties] do not form part of the order. The EC order is confined to the allotment of the symbol,” the CJI observed.
Mr. Sibal said looking at it in its entirety and impact, the EC order was also concerned with the question of who was the “real” Shiv Sena party. “But equally, Mr. Sibal, now they [Shinde] have succeeded before the EC. We cannot pass an order which has the effect of staying the EC order without hearing them… We cannot stay the EC order at this stage,” Chief Justice Chandrachud noted, while issuing notice in the case.
The court gave two weeks’ time to Mr. Shinde and the EC to file their responses to Mr. Thackeray’s challenge to the February 17 order. Mr. Thackeray will get a week thereafter to file his rejoinder, after which the case will come up for hearing again.
Mr. Sibal repeatedly urged the Bench to at least give them the liberty to approach the court in case the Shinde group took any “precipitate action”, leaving the Thackeray faction high and dry, in the interim weeks before the case came up for hearing. However, the court remained non-committal. It brushed aside Mr. Sibal’s fears, observing that his worries concerned issues quite outside the EC order and touched upon “contractual relationships within a political party”.
The court said it cannot put a freeze on the Election Commission’s order “at this stage.” The Thackeray camp can use legal challenges if any action is taken that is not based on the Election Commission’s order. The Shinde faction, however, gave an assurance to the court that they would not issue any whip or take over bank accounts and other property of Shiv Sena.
Team Shinde has contended that the poll symbol issue has already been heard and rejected by the High Court, which asked the Election Commission to go ahead and take a decision. Under the circumstances, why should the Uddhav Thackeray group come to the Supreme Court directly, and why should the court intervene, they questioned.
In his petition filed on Monday, Team Thackeray contended that the Election Commission has failed to consider that they enjoys majority in the Legislative Council and Rajya Sabha. The Commission’s decision is based upon the purported legislative majority of the Shinde group, which is “not a safe guide”. Whether the Shinde group will retain its numbers “is an issue to be determined by the top court in the Constitution Bench,” the Thackeray faction said.
Meanwhile, the Nationalist Congress Party chief Sharad Pawar slammed the Election Commission’s decision to award the Shiv Sena name and the “bow and arrow” symbol to the faction led by Eknath Shinde saying he has never seen such a decision from the poll body.
“Certain organisations have a responsibility to deal fairly with everyone,” Mr Pawar said. “You must have seen a few days ago, the Election Commission gave a decision… have you ever seen the Election Commission take away the total control of one political party and give it to another? Never saw the EC take away total control of one party,” Mr Pawar told reporters on Wednesday.
