Which is the ‘real’ Shiv Sena? Answer lies with the Constitution and Supreme Court

Which is the ‘real’ Shiv Sena? Answer lies with the Constitution and Supreme Court

Subject :Polity

Section :Elections

• Most recently, the Shiv Sena has been split between the Uddhav Thackeray and the Eknath Shinde factions.
• In anticipation of future challenges as to who has control over the party, including its symbols and name, a letter has been sent to the Election Commission from the Sena National Executive, confirming that Uddhav Thackeray continues to be the party president (Paksha Pramujkh).

Why symbols are important for political parties

• The symbol of a party is one of extreme relevance to political survival. For many Indian voters who do not read, the symbol is their association with the party when they exercise their franchise.
• Hence, the importance given to the symbol of the party.

What is the legal and constitutional framework to deal with issues when a party splinters and rival factions assert themselves as the recognised political party.

• Article 324 of the Constitution provides that the superintendence, direction and control of elections is vested in the Election Commission (henceforth Commission)
• Such elections would include those to Parliament, state legislatures, and for the offices of President and Vice-President.
• Pursuant to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 5 specifies that the Commission shall specify the symbols that may be chosen by candidates at elections in parliamentary or assembly constituencies and the restrictions to which their choice will be subject.
• The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 provides for the choice and allotment of symbols in Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies and for recognition of political parties and matters connected.
• Finally, Paragraph 15 of this Order specifies that the Commission has the power to recognise as the party, from amongst splinter groups or rival sections, “after taking into account all available facts and circumstances of the case” and “after hearing representatives”.

The classic case on this is Sadiq Ali v the Election Commission of India (1972).

• Here, the Supreme Court was confronted with the case of the Indian National Congress which had split into two factions. The Indian National Congress (J) was led by Jagjivan Ram and the Indian National Congress (O) functioned under C Subramanium.
• Both groups claimed leadership of the same party and its symbol “Two Bullocks with Yoke on”.
• They filed amongst other documentation letters from each purported president of the party, party constitutions, and statements from party members.
• This included statements of allegiance from members of Parliament and members of the state legislatures
• Eventually, the Commission ruled in favour of Congress (J) being the recognised political party.
• The judge relied on the figures presented to the Commission and found that a substantial majority of the members of the Congress in both its legislative wing as well as the organisational wing supported the Congress (J).
• Further, the court did not seek ascertainment of the wishes of all the primary members of the party.
• the apex court accepted that the views of the All India Congress Committee (AICC) and delegates to it would reflect the opinions of the primary members of the party.