Friends, you all are aware that in June 2022 a split happened in Shiv Sena, which is a regional political party of Maharashtra. Eknath Shinde with 40 MLAs (from the total of 55 MLAs) rebelled against Shiv Sena party President Uddhav Thackeray, which was followed by high drama. At the end of this episode, Eknath Shinde and his group formed the government in Maharashtra with the support of the BJP. This split in the party and the manner in which it happened caught Uddhav Thackeray off guard, and he had to step down from the post of CM, which he had occupied with the support of Congress and NCP.
After the split matter went to The Election Commission of India (EC) for deciding who heads the real Shiv Sena. Both Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde claimed that their party is real Shiv Sena.
The EC in November 2022, froze the party name and the election symbol(Bow and arrow), and allotted Shiv Sena (Uddav Balasahib Thackeray) with the symbol of a burning torch (mashal) to the faction led by Uddhav Thackeray. EC allotted the name of Shiv Sena (Balasahib chi Shiv Sena) with the symbol of Sword and Shield (talvar and dhal).
There were many hearings/representations before the EC which were attended by both factions. Last week on 17th February 2023, the EC gave its verdict and allotted the name Shiv Sena and its earlier symbol of Bow and Arrow to the faction led by Eknath Shinde, thus declaring that they are the real Shiv Sena.
So the Thackeray family has lost its hold over the Shiv Sena, which was founded by Uddhav’s father Balasahib Thackeray in 1966, and after his death, Uddhav became the party president, earlier he was officiating as Executive President for a few years. In its order, the EC has specified that Uddhav Thackeray can use the name Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasahib Thackeray) and symbol till February 2023.
Now why the EC gave its verdict in favour of the Eknath Shinde faction:
The EC relied on a 1972 case (Sadiq Ali) pertaining to a split in Congress. The order back then stated that “ criteria other than that of numerical strength or majority could not provide a satisfactory solution” and ‘the test of the majority was a very valuable and relevant test”. The three tests it relied on in the Sadiq Ali case are the ones the EC also applied in Shinde vs Thackeray dispute.
The first was the ‘test of aims and objectives and the party’s constitution’. According to the order, the Shinde group had alleged that the Thackeray-led Sena deviated from the party’s aim and objectives by forming alliances with parties which subscribed to a different ideology. As per the Shinde group, this was the core point of disagreement and disappointment in the rank and file of the Shiv Sena. The Thackeray faction refuted this, and said that party’s aim and objectives are that “ the party shall be committed to rational secularism, socialism, and national integrity”, and the party had not deviated from this.
As per the EC, neither of the two factions had made any significant averments on the application of this test; thus, the same was found to be inapplicable in the circumstances of the present case.
On the test of commitment to the party’s constitution, the EC said that the constitution of Shiv Sena the Thackeray-led faction was relying on, is ‘undemocratic’. “The party constitution envisages the president nominating the electoral college that is to elect him. This, the EC said, goes against the spirit of democracy, adding that any reliance on the test of a constitution in deciding the Thackeray-Shinde dispute would be undemocratic and catalytic in spreading such practices across parties.
Test of Organisational wing– according to the Sena’s most recently amended constitution (2018), its apex representative body is a 13-member ‘Rashtriya Karyakarini (national executive). This apex body is elected by a Pratinidhhi Sabha (council of representatives) which represents the organizational wing of the party. As per the EC, neither of the two factions provided details on the current strength of this body. The list of office bearers shared with the EC in Feb 2018 after the last time an internal election was held in the party does not reflect the name of ‘Pratinidhi Sabha’ members.
Thus the test of the majority in the organizational wing could not yield a determined or satisfactory finding.
Test of majority in the legislative wing– The EC said that recognition for a political party is based on the number of votes it polled in the election, and the number of its elected representatives to Lok Sabha, and the legislative assembly. The outcome of the test of majority in the legislative wing clearly shows ‘qualitative superiority” in favour of the Shinde group. It was noted that 40 MLAs of the Shinde group got 76% of the total votes polled in favour of the Shiv Sena in the 2019 assembly election. Similarly, 13 of 18 MPs supporting the Shinde group got 73% of the total votes polled in favour of the Shiv Sena in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Applying this test in the legislative wing of the Shiv Sena has given a clear answer as to which faction is enjoying majority support.
This is the reason why the verdict of the EC went in favour of the Shinde group.
Now the Uddhav Thackeray group is trying to malign the EC by saying that the EC is working as per the instructions of the BJP, and one of its leaders has the audacity of giving a statement that Rs 2000 Cr was spent by BJP and the Shinde group to buy this verdict.
My contention is that Uddhav Thackeray is a bad loser because he in his wildest dreams could not see that he will lose control of the Shiv Sena in this way when his own party men will revolt against the party’s top leadership. He never realized that during his tenure as the CM, as he was busy pleasing the leaders of NCP and Congress high command to stay in power, he was losing contact with his own party men, who were feeling that they are being sidetracked. Secondly, party men were not happy with Uddhav Thackeray leaving the Hindutva plank and appeasing minorities, following in the footsteps of Congress and NCP.
Now Uddhav Thackeray says that their faction will appeal to the Supreme court against the verdict of the EC. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that the SC will go against the verdict of the EC.
There is one matter still in the SC on this split, which is the disqualification of a number of MLAs by the deputy speaker, and the Shinde faction’s claim of their notice of removal of the deputy speaker, as the house does not have confidence in him. It is to be noticed that there was no Speaker of Assembly at the time of the split, and the deputy speaker had sent the notice of disqualifications. I will deliberate on this topic in my future blogs.
Waiting for your views on this blog
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
20th February 2023