BREAKING| Shiv Sena Rift : Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Tomorrow Uddhav Thackeray's Petition Against ECI Decision

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear tomorrow the petition filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging the decision of Election Commission of India to recognize Eknath Shinde group as the official Shiv Sena.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Uddhav Thackeray, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent hearing. Sibal submitted that urgent protective orders are necessary as the Shinde group is taking over the offices and bank accounts of the party on the basis of the ECI order.

CJI DY Chandrachud agreed to hear the matter tomorrow at 3.30 PM, after the Constitution Bench hearing. It may be recalled that the Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud is hearing the other issues related to Shiv Sena rift.

Although Sibal requested that the matter be heard today, CJI Chandrachud disagreed, saying that he wants to read the files before hearing.

Uddhav Thackeray has approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India which recognized Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena. Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India, requesting it to be listed along with the ongoing cases before the Constitution Bench.

It was on February 17 that the ECI allowed Eknath Shinde's application seeking the allotment of the official Shiv Sena name and its symbol "bow and arrow".

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is currently considering the issues relating to the Shiv Sena rift. On 17th February 2023, the Bench decided to hear the matter on merits.

At the outset, the petition submits that the issues arising in the petition have a direct bearing on the issues which are being considered by the Constitution Bench and thus, the present petition may be heard along with the matters being considered by the Constitution Bench. The ECI, in its order, had disregarded the constitutionality test by holding that the Constitution of the party was undemocratic and thus could not be held sacrosanct. The petition states that the same was erroneous as the ECI failed to discharge its duties as a neutral arbiter of disputes and acted in a manner undermining its constitutional status. The petitioner alleges that the ECI acted in a "biased and unfair manner".