Supreme Court Issues Notice On Shiv Sena (UBT) Plea Challenging Lok Sabha Speaker’s Recognition Of 6 MPs’ Merger

The Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, however, declined to grant any interim relief at this stage.

Appearing for Sawant, Senior Advocate Devdutt Kamat argued that six out of the nine MPs were elected on the Shiv Sena (UBT) symbol and that no disqualification proceedings were pending against them.

"Six out of nine MPs were elected on my party's symbol. No disqualification proceedings are pending against them, and the question of deciding a merger hasn't even arisen. The issue goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy and raises serious questions of constitutional morality," Kamat submitted.

"There is no merger in law and no order accepting any merger. A mere circular cannot alter party affiliation," he argued.

He further submitted that Shiv Sena (UBT), which had nine MPs after the general elections, had effectively been reduced to three because of the impugned circular, while the rival Shiv Sena's strength increased from seven to thirteen.

"The six MPs cannot unilaterally declare a merger. There is absolutely no merger recognised in law, and no Speaker's order to support it," Kamat argued.

During the hearing, Justice Narasimha observed: "Keep your powder dry. We'll issue notice."

Kamat pressed for interim relief, contending that the matter was orchestrated to affect the ongoing Parliament session and that delaying adjudication would render the challenge infructuous.

Justice Narasimha, however, responded: "We will issue notice, no interim."

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the respondents, opposed the plea and submitted that the issues relating to the legislative party had already been settled.

Reiterating his challenge, Kamat maintained that the Speaker lacked jurisdiction to recognise any merger in the absence of compliance with the constitutional requirements under the Tenth Schedule.

The matter will now be heard after notice is served on the respondents.

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 Vs Hon'ble Speaker Lok Sabha

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

Hearing Date: July 22, 2026