Supreme Court sought replies on UBT MP's challenge to Lok Sabha Speaker's decision approving the merger of six Shiv Sena UBT MPs with the Shinde faction

The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the respondents on a plea filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Ganpat Sawant challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision approving the merger of six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena.

The Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was hearing the plea, in which the UBT faction has challenged the Speaker's decision concerning the six MPs.


Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadutt Kamat appeared for the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction, while Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared for the Shinde faction.

At the outset, Sibal sought interim relief, pointing out that the matter had earlier been listed specifically for consideration of interim relief.

Kaul, however, sought time to file a reply on behalf of the respondents.

Sibal opposed the request, submitting that the matter had serious consequences and required consideration by the Court.

Kamat also objected to the position taken by the respondents, submitting that Kaul had appeared for all the private respondents and accepted notice earlier, making it unfair to now seek additional time.

Sibal further submitted that no immediate consequence would follow during the ongoing Parliamentary session, contending that the Speaker's powers under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule were limited.

Justice PS Narasimha then focused on the issue of whether an opportunity of hearing had been provided before the Speaker took the decision.

Justice Narasimha observed that the question of whether an opportunity had been given was an important issue, asking who had appeared before the Speaker on behalf of the concerned respondents.

The Bench noted that none appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The Supreme Court thereafter directed the respondents to ensure service on the unserved parties and ordered that the matter be listed after two weeks.

Sibal requested the Bench to fix a specific date for the hearing.

Justice Narasimha, however, said the matter would come up automatically after the stipulated period.

The plea challenges the Speaker's decision relating to the merger of the six MPs with the Shinde-led faction and raises questions concerning the application of the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Notably on July 22, the Court had issued notice on a plea filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Lok Sabha MP Arvind Sawant challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's July 18 decision recognising the actions of six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs who sought to "merge" themselves with the rival Shiv Sena faction led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. The Bench had however, declined to grant any interim relief at this stage.

On July 21, the Court had refused to urgently list a plea filed against the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla's decision to recognize the merger of six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs with Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena. The matter was mentioned before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant for urgent listing by Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Arvind Sawant has approached the Supreme Court challenging Lok Sabha Speaker's July 18 decision recognising the actions of six MPs who unilaterally sought to "merge" themselves with the rival Shiv Sena faction led by former Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.

About the plea

Challenging a circular issued by the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat as ex facie unconstitutional, illegal and perverse, Sawant, who is the parliamentary party leader of Shiv Sena (UBT), argued that the 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign centred around Eknath Shinde's alleged usurpation of Balasaheb Thackeray's legacy through illegal means and unconstitutionally orchestrated defections.

According to the petition, the electorate chose the six MPs after accepting the Shiv Sena (UBT)'s campaign and leadership. However, within two years of being elected, the MPs allegedly betrayed the faith reposed in them by claiming to "merge" with the rival Shiv Sena led by Shinde. The plea contended that such a merger, based solely on unilateral claims by legislators and without the consent of their parent political party, has no constitutional or legal sanction. It described the move as a blatant affront to the concept of parliamentary democracy, which is founded on the functioning of political parties.

The petition argued that the impugned circular amounts to a "constitutional hara-kiri" and weakens the very foundation of India's parliamentary democracy. It further stated that the case reflects the larger constitutional crisis surrounding the functioning of political parties in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies.

According to the plea, the Supreme Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, must strike down the circular and nullify the six MPs' attempt to function in the House in collusion with a rival political party. Sawant also contended that the circular violates the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution because neither he nor Shiv Sena (UBT) was supplied with copies of the representations allegedly made by the six MPs before the decision was taken.

The plea emphasised that members elected on the ticket of a political party are constitutionally bound to act in accordance with that party's directions and whips, a position that has been consistently recognised by the Supreme Court.

What does the petition say about the anti-defection law?

Referring to Paragraphs 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule, the petition said the anti-defection law provides for disqualification when a legislator voluntarily gives up membership of the original political party or acts contrary to its directions in the House. It argued that the Tenth Schedule recognises the concept of merger only as a defence in disqualification proceedings.

In the present case, however, no disqualification proceedings have yet been initiated by Shiv Sena (UBT) against the six MPs. The plea therefore contended that the Speaker's circular departs from the constitutional scheme, constitutes a gross illegality and substantive unconstitutionality, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, names the Lok Sabha Speaker, the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, and the six MPs - Bhausaheb Wakchaure, Nagesh Patil Ashtikar, Omprakash Raje Nimbalkar, Sanjay Bandu Jadhav, Sanjay Deshmukh and Sanjay Dina Patil - as respondents.

Case Title: Arvind Ganpat Sawant v. Hon'ble Speaker Lok Sabha

Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Hearing Date: August 10, 2026

Tags: