The Supreme Court on Tuesday told Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) leader Uddhav Thackeray that his case against an Election Commission (EC) order allotting the party name ‘Shiv Sena’ and symbol, ‘the bow and arrow’, to Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde will come up only after a Constitution Bench wraps up hearing a challenge to the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Article 370 case is scheduled to start from August 2. It has been pending in the top court for several years.
“Wait for the Jammu and Kashmir matter to get over,” Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud addressed advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, who made an urgent mentioning for Mr. Thackeray.
The court had on July 10 listed Mr. Thackeray’s case for hearing on July 31. However, it did not come up.
Disqualification proceedings
Similarly, a separate oral mentioning by Thackeray loyalist, Sunil Prabhu, urged the Supreme Court to hear without delay a plea accusing Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar of deliberately delaying the disqualification proceedings pending against Mr. Shinde for defection.
The court had issued notice in the case on July 14 and listed it for hearing after two weeks.
“The case was not taken up after two weeks. Please list it,” Mr. Prabhu’s lawyer urged the court.
The Chief Justice said he would schedule a hearing.
In July 14, Mr. Prabhu’s side had informed the court that the Speaker had quickly issued notices to Mr. Shinde and other MLAs after learning that the petition was filed in the Supreme Court.
Also read:Sena vs Sena | Supreme Court is the ‘only ray of hope’, says Uddhav Thackeray
In Mr. Thackeray’s own challenge against the EC’s February 17 order, he argued that elections were “imminent” in the State and Mr. Shinde was “illegally” using the party name and symbol.
Mr. Tiwari, during the mentioning on Tuesday, drew attention to the court’s own recent Constitution Bench judgment, which had held that the February 17 order would take effect only “prospectively”, after the Speaker took a call on the pending disqualification petitions.
In his appeal, Mr. Thackeray had argued that the EC order was “unfair” and “biased”. He contended that the poll body had failed in its duties as a “neutral arbiter of disputes” under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order of 1968.
The EC order was based on proceedings under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order (Reservation and Allotment), 1968, which empowers it to identify a “recognised political party” among rival factions or splinter groups.
