Setback For Uddhav Thackeray As SC Refuses To Stay Speaker Om Birla's Decision On Merger Of 6 Sena UBT MPs Into Shinde Sena

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on a petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) challenging the recognition of the merger of six of its Lok Sabha MPs with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena. However, the apex court declined to grant an interim stay on the merger, saying it would examine the matter after hearing all parties.

A Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice on the plea and directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavits within two weeks. "We have issued notice. We will consider. File counter. After two weeks," the Bench observed while hearing the matter, as reported by Bar and Bench.

The legal challenge comes weeks after Speaker Om Birla recognised the merger of six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs with the Shinde-led faction on June 18. The decision increased the Shinde camp's strength in the Lok Sabha from seven to 13 members and was reflected in an official circular issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat outlining the revised party position in the House.

Appearing for Shiv Sena (UBT), Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat argued that the Speaker's decision raised significant issues of constitutional morality and propriety. He contended that the six MPs had been elected on the Shiv Sena (UBT) symbol and that no disqualification proceedings were pending against them, making the recognition of a merger legally untenable.

Kamat questioned the validity of the Lok Sabha circular, pointing out that it was signed by a Joint Secretary and did not disclose whether the Speaker had passed any formal order approving the merger.

He further argued that the six MPs had unilaterally declared a merger with a rival political party without any actual merger of the parent political organisation. According to him, such a move could not be treated as a valid merger under law.

Seeking urgent intervention from the court, Kamat urged the Bench to stay the Speaker's decision, alleging that the process had been orchestrated and warning that delays in judicial intervention could render the challenge ineffective over time. He also maintained that the issue did not fall under the Tenth Schedule's disqualification provisions and argued that the Speaker lacked the jurisdiction to recognise such a merger.

Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court refused to grant interim relief at this stage. Instead, it chose to issue notice to the respondents and will consider the legality of the Speaker's decision after receiving their replies. The matter is expected to be taken up again after two weeks.