Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s faction in the Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 2, 2026) argued that the ‘legislative majority test’ cannot be ruled out as a determining factor to conclude which rival faction in a political party holds the larger numbers.
Appearing before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the Shinde faction, said the Supreme Court had not ruled out the veracity of the test in a 2023 Constitution Bench judgment in the Subhash Desai case.
Anti-defection law applies even if a faction splits from a party: Supreme Court at Shiv Sena hearing Mr.
Kaul contended that the Shinde faction had parted ways due to disenchantment over Uddhav 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 made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr.
Thackeray, that a split in a legislature party can never, by itself, amount to a split in the political party and the Election Commission’s decision to recognise Mr.
Shinde’s unit as “real Shiv Sena” and grant it the bow-and-arrow symbol was unlawful.
The court was hearing petitions filed in 2024 by the Uddhav faction against the poll panel’s order allotting the ‘bow and arrow’ symbol to the Shinde-led unit.
The pleas have also challenged the February 17, 2023 order of the Election Commission recognising the Shinde faction as the original Shiv Sena.
The party had split into two rival camps after Mr.
Shinde, backed by 40 out of 55 party MLAs, rebelled and left the party led by Mr.
Thackeray.
The political crisis saw the eventual toppling of the Thackeray government.
Shinde teamed up with the Devendra Fadnavis-led BJP side and formed the government.
The Election Commission later on concluded that Mr.
Shinde was the “real” Shiv Sena and gave his party the party symbol.
In August, Mr.
Sibal argued that such “mergers” orchestrated by a faction of MLAs/MPs was not dictated by democratic or ideological powers, but amounted to a naked pursuit of power.
The senior advocate had said it was time the Supreme Court examined the “trend” of “coordinated and unilateral” shift of loyalties by legislators of one political party to another, leading to the overthrow of elected governments in multiple States.
He had asked whether a few legislators could unilaterally decide a “merger” with another party without the knowledge of the parent political party.
