Ajit Karn
In an affidavit lodged with the Supreme Court, the Election Commission defended its decision to grant the party names “Shiv Sena” symbol and “Bow and Arrow” to the faction led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
The EC stated in the affidavit that the order was well-reasoned and addresses all of the concerns raised by the Uddhav Camp.
The affidavit was submitted in response to a petition filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging Election Commission’s decision to grant the party names “Shiv Sena” and “Bow and Arrow” to the faction led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
Election Commission stated that it issued the challenged order dated 17 February 2023 in the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. (Symbols Order).
EC argued that the challenged order was not issued by the Commission in its administrative capacity, but rather in a quasi-judicial capacity pursuant to the Symbols Order.
However, EC chose not to make any arguments on the merits of the case and stated that its decision was well-reasoned and addresses all of the Petitioner’s concerns. “Therefore, the Election Commission has become functus officio in this case, as it has already fulfilled its duty to adjudicate the petition submitted under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order following the issuance of the challenged order,” the affidavit stated.
The EC also argued that, in a multitude of cases, the courts have held that, when an order issued by a quasi-judicial body is challenged before an appellate court, the quasi-judicial body need not be named as a party to the appeal.
Prior to this, Uddhav Thackeray challenged the Election Commission’s decision to give the party name “Shiv Sena” and the symbol “Bow and Arrow” to the faction commanded by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
In his petition against the Election Commission’s decision to grant the party name “Shiv Sena” and the symbol “Bow and Arrow” to the faction led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, Uddhav Thackeray argued that the ECI failed to take into account his faction’s majority in the Legislative Council and Rajya Sabha.
Uddhav Thackeray argued in his petition that the legislative majority alone could not be the foundation for the EC’s order in this instance.
Uddhav Thackeray argued that the EC’s decision was erroneous, stating that “the entire edifice of the impugned order (EC’s decision) is founded on the purported legislative majority of the Respondent (Shinde), which is a matter to be decided by the apex court’s Constitution Bench.”
Uddhav Thackeray stated that the ECI erred in concluding that there is a split in the political party and argued, “in the absence of any pleadings and evidence that there was a split in a political party, the ECI’s finding on this ground is entirely erroneous.”
Uddhav Thackeray argued that the ECI has failed to recognise that the Petitioner enjoys overwhelming support from the party’s rank and file. He stated that his faction holds an overwhelming majority in the Pratinidhi Sabha, the supreme representative body representing the desires of the Primary members and other party stakeholders.
Uddhav Thackeray, in raising questions about the Election Commission, stated that the commission disregards the constitutionality test by asserting that the party’s constitution cannot be considered sacred because it cannot be deemed ‘democratic.’
Also read this:CM Eknath Shinde, Dy Fadnavis meet farmers’ reps at 3 pm in Mantralaya amid protest.
Uddhav Thackeray argued that the ECI has failed to fulfil its responsibilities as a neutral dispute arbitrator and has acted in a manner that undermines its constitutional standing.
The ECI has disregarded the 2018 party constitution, which was acknowledged by the Respondent Shinde to be the party constitution, on the grounds that such a constitution is undemocratic and that the Commission was not informed of its existence.
