Supreme Court Seeks Speaker’s Reply but Does Not Pause Sena MPs’ Merger With Shinde Camp

The Supreme Court has declined to grant an interim stay on the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision recognising the merger of six Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) MPs with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena, allowing the revised party arrangement in Parliament to continue while the legal challenge remains under consideration. A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on a petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) parliamentary leader Arvind Sawant and listed the matter for further hearing after two weeks. The Speaker’s recognition, announced on July 18, increased the Shinde-led Shiv Sena’s Lok Sabha strength from seven to 13 MPs and reduced the Uddhav-led faction from nine members to three. The six breakaway MPs account for two-thirds of the UBT faction’s parliamentary strength, a figure relevant to the merger exception under the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution’s Tenth Schedule. However, the UBT faction argues that the lawmakers merely decided to join a rival party and that there was no merger involving their original political party. Senior advocate Devdatt Kamat, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that no disqualification proceedings were pending before the Speaker and questioned whether there was any legal occasion for formally recognising a merger. He also pointed out that the disputed circular was signed by a Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat rather than by the Speaker personally, while alleging that the move had been timed around Parliament’s Monsoon Session. The petition says the MPs were elected on the Shiv Sena (UBT) name, flaming-torch symbol and political platform and therefore could not disregard the mandate received from voters. Lawyers representing the respondents opposed the request for immediate relief and argued that some of the petitioner’s contentions concerning the legislative party had already been rejected in earlier proceedings. By refusing a temporary stay, the Supreme Court has not delivered a final verdict on whether the Speaker’s action was constitutionally valid; it has simply allowed the present arrangement to remain operational until the Speaker and other respondents file their replies and the court hears the case in greater detail.