The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice on a petition filed by Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) challenging Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s decision recognising the merger of its six MPs with the Shiv Sena led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice on a petition filed by Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) challenging Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s decision recognising the merger of its six MPs with the Shiv Sena led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
The Court issued the notice to Speaker Birla, the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat (who issued the impugned circular), as well as Bhausaheb Wakchaure, Nagesh Patil Ashtikar, Omprakash Raje Nimbalkar, Sanjay Bandu Jadhav, Sanjay Deshmukh and Sanjay Dina Patil—the six MPs who merged with the Shiv Sena (Shinde) Parliamentary Party.
Advertisement
Issuing the notice on the plea seeking to quash the July 18, 2026 circular that recognized the crossing over of the six Lok Sabha members from Shiv Sena (UBT) to Shiv Sena (Shinde) and listed them as members of the Shiv Sena (Shinde) Parliamentary Party, a Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe also issued notice on the prayer seeking an interim stay of the circular.
Advertisement
Seeking an interim stay of the July 18 circular, the petitioner submitted, “… if the interim relief is refused, it will result in an irreparable injury to the democratic fabric, the electoral process, and the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) Political Party, which cannot be compensated or undone by any subsequent final relief.”
The Court, however, declined to stay the circular under challenge.
The matter was posted for hearing on August 10, 2026, including on the prayer for interim stay of the July 18 circular,
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader in the Lok Sabha, Arvind Ganpat Sawant, has approached the top court challenging the July 18, 2026 circular.
At the outset of the hearing, senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the writ petitioner Arvind Ganpat Sawant, urged the Court to list the matter next week, submitting, “All these processes get defeated with the lapse of time. Time is the essence.”
The July 18 circular issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, which has been challenged, states: “Consequent upon change in party affiliation of 6 members of Shiv Sena (UBT) in Lok Sabha, revised Party Position in Eighteenth Lok Sabha as on 18.07.2026 is enclosed.” The revised list showed that the strength of Shiv Sena (Shinde), which initially had seven members, increased to 13.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat told the Bench that the petition “raises important question of constitutional morality and propriety that goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy. Six MPs out of 9 chosen on my party symbol; no disqualification proceedings are pending. Question on merger has not arisen as what (Supreme Court) in Subhash Desai (case judgment) … whole thing is orchestrated only for the purpose of this session (of parliament).”
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde), opposed the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s plea.
Terming the July 18 circular as “unconstitutional, illegal and perverse”, the petition by Shiv Sena (UBT) stated, “Such attempt at merger through unilateral claims of legislators, in defiance of their parent political party is without any constitutional or legal sanction. Such action is a blatant affront to the very concept of parliamentary democracy enshrined in the Constitution which is based on the functioning of political parties.”
Urging the Court to quash the circular, the petition stated that the “circular amounts to a constitutional hara-kiri, and weakens the very foundation of our parliamentary democracy. In fact, the present case is a stark example of the prevailing constitutional crisis surrounding the functioning of political parties in Parliament and in State Legislative Assemblies.”
Underscoring that parliamentary democracy is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the petition stated that it is imperative for the Court, as the sentinel on the qui vive, to save democracy from the political machinations of the respondents.
It further stated, “It is imperative for this Court, in discharge of its role as the guardian of the Constitution to issue effective directions striking down the impugned circular and nullify the attempts of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 (6 MPs) to undermine the democratic framework by functioning in the House in collusion with rival political parties.”
Advertisement
