Top 10

Supreme Court Defers Shiv Sena Party and Symbol Case to November 12

The Supreme Court on Wednesday commenced the hearing on the long-standing dispute over the Shiv Sena party name and election symbol. Representing the Uddhav Thackeray faction, senior advocate Kapil Sibal initiated his arguments and urged the court to expedite the proceedings, pointing out that local body elections are due in January.

However, due to the listing of an important case related to the Armed Forces, the Supreme Court bench concluded other hearings early, leaving no time for arguments in the Shiv Sena dispute. The matter will now be heard on November 12, extending the wait further in the politically sensitive case.

Before the hearing, the apex court had informed both factions, the Uddhav Thackeray group and the Eknath Shinde group, that proceedings would be brief. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Thackeray faction, requested the court to assign another date if the hearing could not be taken up.

The Shinde faction, which currently holds the official Shiv Sena name and bow-and-arrow symbol, expressed no urgency for the hearing. Their lawyers even suggested that the case could be taken up in December. However, Sibal pressed for an early date, stressing that Maharashtra’s local body elections are scheduled for January and that the issue of the party and symbol should be settled beforehand.

When asked how much time he would need for his final arguments, Sibal responded that he could complete them within 45 minutes, following which the court fixed November 12 for the next hearing.

Reacting to the adjournment, Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) MLA Sanjay Shirsat said, “We have presented our case strongly before the court. Our position is legally sound, and we will accept whatever verdict the court delivers. The Thackeray group, however, has a tendency to question the judiciary whenever a decision doesn’t go their way. If the verdict goes against them, they call it unconstitutional; if it favors them, they praise the court. They should clarify whether they truly respect the Constitution.”

Related Post