Read Time: 04 minutes
Election Commission concluded that the group led by Ajit Pawar enjoyed majority support of the legislators and can lay claim to being NCP
The Supreme Court today adjourned the hearing in the plea filed by National Congress Party (NCP) leader Sharad Pawar led faction challenging the Election Commission's decision to grant the clock party symbol to Ajit Pawar and recognize his group of MLAs as the real NCP.
On account of the requisite documents not being placed before the court in a proper fashion, the bench went on to list the case for Thursday.
"Documents are split in three parts..we will list it on Thursday..you file proper documents..", a bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan said.
However, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi did start with his submissions when he told that the Sharad Pawar faction wanted that both parties to use a non-clock symbol. "Sharad Pawar has created this whole organisation..people would vote for the clock symbol thinking it is Sharad Pawar..", the court was told.
Earlier, Singhvi had told a CJI led bench that Pawar may be forced to face a whip issued by the Ajit Pawar faction on commencement of the Assemble session next week.
Sharad Pawar had approached the Supreme Court a few days back challenging the ECI's decision in favour of Ajit Pawar, who broke away from the Sharad Pawar camp to join the Shiv Sena-BJP government in Maharashtra with eight NCP MLAs.
The ECI had ruled that Ajit Pawar's faction was the real NCP and permitted the faction to use the 'clock' symbol for the party. In its order, ECI said total number of NCP MLAs in Maharashtra State assembly stood at 81, out of which, Ajit Pawar submitted affidavits of 57 MLAs in his support while Sharad Pawar had only 28 affidavits.
Notably, Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar also recognized the Ajit Pawar-led faction as the legitimate NCP and dismissed all disqualification petitions against both the Sharad Pawar faction and the Ajit Pawar faction.
The Speaker's decision acknowledged that the Ajit Pawar faction had the support of the majority of MLAs and further noted that the collective dissent would remain a dissent within the political party even when it began to be raised publicly.
Case Title: Sharad Pawar vs. Ajit Pawar
Please Login or Register
