THE Eknath Shinde faction on Wednesday defended in the Supreme Court the Election Commission’s decision recognising it as the real Shiv Sena and allotting it the party’s bow-andarrow symbol. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was told by senior advocate N K Kaul, appearing for the Shinde faction, that there was “not a shred of evidence” that any Shiv Sena constitution subsequent to the 2011 version had ever been submitted to the Election Commission (EC). The senior lawyer focused, among other issues, on the party constitution, inner-party democracy, the EC’s jurisdiction and the timing of its decision to resolve the symbol dispute. He told the bench that the poll body itself had recorded in two orders that the only party constitution available with it was the 2011 constitution, which had been brought into conformity with the poll body’s requirements. “We brought it in conformity. That was the mandate of the leadership at that time. It was brought in conformity with what the Election Commission wanted in 2011,” he said.

 

He argued that the dispute arose later when an attempt was made to alter the party constitution and subsequently claimed that the revised document had been submitted to the EC. “The EC says, ‘We never received it.’ Every letter they annex talks about party elections. When they write to the EC, they never annex the Constitution. There is not a shred of evidence to show that any new Constitution was handed over to the EC,” Kaul said. Referring to submissions made by Shiv Sena leader Subhash Desai in the earlier proceedings, Kaul said the party itself had stated that it would abide by the constitution available with the Election Commission. He then relied on judicial precedents to argue that political parties must adhere to principles of inner-party democracy. Citing a decision of the top court, Kaul said that political parties form the “base of the democratic pyramid” and must themselves practise democracy. “Failure to hold periodic elections and uphold inner-party democracy undermines a political party’s claim to promote democracy nationally,” he said. On the argument that the EC should have waited for the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions against the rebel MLAs before deciding the party-symbol dispute, he said the filing of a disqualification petition and its eventual outcome were two distinct matters.