Mumbai: Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Eknath Shinde led Shiv Sena, on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the party’s 2018 constitution had fundamentally altered its earlier democratic organisational structure and concentrated extensive powers in the hands of the party chief.
1997 EC Intervention Highlighted
Kaul placed before the court the historical record of the Shiv Sena constitution and the Election Commission’s interventions since 1997, arguing that the framework relied upon by the Uddhav Thackeray faction was materially different from the democratic constitution accepted by the Election Commission in 1999.
According to Kaul, the Election Commission had in 1997 made it clear that recognised political parties were required to have elected office-bearers and conduct periodic organisational elections. At that time, 42 of 43 recognised national and state-level parties had conducted organisational elections, while Shiv Sena was the sole exception. The party had initially maintained that its constitution provided for nomination rather than election of office-bearers.
1997 Elections Led To New Structure
The Election Commission rejected that position, holding that political parties enjoying recognition, exclusive election symbols and other facilities were expected to maintain internal democracy. Following the intervention, Shiv Sena informed the Commission that it had conducted organisational elections in December 1997. A 14-member National Executive was elected for five years, while a three-member committee was constituted to recommend amendments and frame rules for internal elections.
Kaul pointed out that although a resolution at the time provided for Balasaheb Thackeray to remain Shiv Sena Pramukh for life or as long as he wished, the subsequent constitutional process resulted in the 1999 party constitution, which introduced a more structured organisational framework with elected elements.
2018 Amendments Under Question
The senior advocate argued that the 2018 amendments effectively reversed this democratic process. The amended constitution, he submitted, gave extensive powers to the party chief and created what the Election Commission later described as a “power centre” around the chief. The Supreme Court had also previously questioned whether the amended constitution had transformed the party into a “one-person structure.”
Kaul maintained that the dispute was not merely about paperwork or which faction had submitted particular documents. At its core, he said, was the question of who had the authority to define a political party through its constitution, organisational structure and office-bearers. He argued that the existence of organisational bodies could not by itself establish internal democracy if their functioning depended upon the pleasure of one individual.
He also rejected the contention that the Election Commission had acted suddenly in the present dispute, pointing out that its concerns over internal democracy in Shiv Sena dated back to 1997 and involved notices, hearings and sustained engagement with the party.
The next hearing in the Supreme Court is scheduled for September 15, 2026.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
