Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing In Plea Against Speaker Recognizing Merger of UBT Shiv Sena MPs With Eknath Shinde Faction

The Supreme Court today 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 of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Pancholi for urgent listing by Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat.

"This is an important matter.. Speaker recognises the merger of 6 MPs with the rival party. This shows importantance of a constitutional position. Speaker has recognised late Saturday night and it has brought parliament work for the party to a standstill," Senior Advocate Kamat submitted.

"We don't know about tomorrow. But we will list it," CJI Kant said.

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.

Plea: Six MPs betrayed voters' mandate

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.

Speaker's circular unconstitutional, says petition

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: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Pancholi

Hearing Date: July 21, 2026