 chief. Eknath Shinde – Shiv Sena leader.webp)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (6 August) raised a significant constitutional question during the hearing of the long-running Shiv Sena name and election symbol dispute, asking whether political parties that advocate democratic values are themselves expected to function democratically. The observation came while the Court heard challenges filed by the Uddhav Thackeray faction against the Election Commission of India's decision recognising the Eknath Shinde-led faction as the official Shiv Sena.
Background of the Case
The matter arises from the political split in Shiv Sena in 2022, after which the Eknath Shinde faction claimed the party's name and its iconic "bow and arrow" election symbol before the Election Commission of India (ECI).
In February 2023, the ECI ruled in favour of the Shinde faction. The Commission relied primarily on the legislative majority enjoyed by the Shinde camp after concluding that it could not satisfactorily determine the strength of the organisational wing because of issues relating to the party's constitution.
The Uddhav Thackeray faction challenged that decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the ECI exceeded its authority by disregarding the party's 2018 constitution.
Court's Observations
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana examined the role of internal democracy within political parties.
Referring to amendments made to the Shiv Sena constitution, the Chief Justice observed,
"Originally, the party constitution was founded on democratic principles. Subsequently, it was amended and became virtually a one-person structure."
The Bench further remarked,
"When we speak of democratic principles and institutions safeguarding democratic values, the question naturally arises whether a political party is itself expected to function democratically."
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Uddhav Thackeray faction, responded that while the issue of internal democracy may be important, it was not one that the Election Commission was empowered to determine while deciding a symbol dispute.
He argued that constitutional authorities and political parties perform different functions and, therefore, cannot be judged by the same standards. According to Sibal, if the Commission believed a party constitution violated statutory requirements, it could seek corrective action but could not ignore the constitution while deciding competing claims over the party's identity.
Discussion on Disqualification Proceedings
The hearing also touched upon the pending disqualification proceedings against legislators.
Sibal argued that subsequent actions by members of the Shinde faction were relevant to determine whether they had voluntarily given up their party membership.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, observed,
"It does matter. In disqualification proceedings, subsequent events are ordinarily not taken into consideration."
The Bench noted that the legal principles governing disqualification proceedings and election symbol disputes operate on different tests, even if both arise from the same political developments.
Court's Decision
The Supreme Court did not pass any substantive order on Thursday. After hearing detailed submissions from the Uddhav Thackeray faction, the Bench directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on August 11, when arguments will continue.
Case Details
Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde & Connected Matter (Uddhav Thackeray v. Election Commission of India)
Case Number: SLP (Civil) No. 1644–1662 of 2024
Judge: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana
Decision Date: August 7, 2026
