Supreme Court Issues Notice to Lok Sabha Speaker on Shiv Sena (UBT) Plea Challenging MPs’ Merger with Shinde Faction
The Supreme Court has issued notices to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, the Lok Sabha Secretariat and six Members of Parliament who recently shifted allegiance from the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) faction to the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena. The notices were issued on a writ petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Lok Sabha MP Arvind Sawant, who has challenged the Speaker’s decision recognising the merger of six UBT MPs with the rival faction. However, the Court declined to grant any interim stay on the Speaker’s decision at this stage.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Speaker had no jurisdiction to approve the merger because no disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule were pending against the MPs. He contended that the recognition of the merger raises fundamental issues concerning constitutional morality, parliamentary democracy and the operation of the anti-defection law.
The petition also questions the procedural validity of the Speaker’s decision. According to the petitioner, the order approving the merger was signed by a Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat rather than by the Speaker himself. The plea asserts that such a decision, involving constitutional rights and legislative recognition under the Tenth Schedule, cannot be delegated and is therefore legally unsustainable.
The dispute arose after Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla recognised the merger of six out of the nine Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena shortly before the commencement of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. The six MPs include Sanjay Jadhav, Sanjay Deshmukh, Sanjay Dina Patil, Nagesh Patil Ashtikar, Omprakash Rajenimbalkar and Bhausaheb Wakchaure. Following the recognition, the strength of the UBT faction in the Lok Sabha reduced to three MPs, while the Shinde faction’s strength increased to thirteen.
The petition argues that a legislative party cannot independently claim the benefit of a merger unless there is a corresponding merger of the original political party, as contemplated under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. The UBT faction maintains that the parent political party has neither approved nor initiated any merger with the Shinde-led Shiv Sena, rendering the Speaker’s recognition constitutionally invalid. The case is therefore expected to revisit the interpretation of the anti-defection law and the constitutional requirements governing political mergers.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Eknath Shinde faction, opposed the petition and resisted the request for interim relief. After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court issued notices to the respondents but declined to suspend the operation of the Speaker’s decision, observing that the matter required a fuller examination after replies were filed. The case has been listed for further hearing after two weeks.
The litigation is likely to have significant constitutional implications for the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule, the scope of the Speaker’s powers in recognising legislative mergers, and the balance between judicial review and parliamentary autonomy. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling may influence future disputes involving party splits, defections and legislative realignments, particularly in cases where questions arise over whether a merger of legislators can be recognised independently of a merger of the original political party.
