Shinde Sena Tells Supreme Court 2018 Constitution Ended Democratic Setup

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena, told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the party’s 2018 constitution fundamentally altered its earlier democratic organisational structure by concentrating extensive powers in the hands of the party chief. The legal arguments were presented during proceedings addressing the long-running dispute over control of the Mumbai-based party.

Kaul placed the historical record of the Shiv Sena constitution and the Election Commission of India's interventions since 1997 before the apex court. He argued that the constitutional framework currently relied upon by the Uddhav Thackeray faction was materially different from the democratic constitution that had been formally accepted by the Election Commission in 1999.

According to Kaul, the Election Commission had established in 1997 that all recognised political parties were required to have elected office-bearers and conduct periodic organisational elections. At that time, 42 of 43 recognised national and state-level political parties had completed organisational elections, leaving the Shiv Sena as the sole exception. The party had initially contended that its constitution provided for the nomination rather than the election of its office-bearers.

The Election Commission rejected that stance, ruling that political parties enjoying official recognition, exclusive election symbols, and other statutory facilities were required to maintain internal democracy. Following that intervention, the Shiv Sena informed the Commission that it had conducted organisational elections in December 1997. A 14-member National Executive was elected for a five-year term, and a three-member committee was formed to recommend amendments and frame rules for internal elections.

Kaul noted that while a resolution at the time allowed Balasaheb Thackeray to remain Shiv Sena Pramukh for life or as long as he wished, the subsequent constitutional process produced the 1999 party constitution. That document introduced a structured organisational framework with elected elements.

However, Kaul argued that the 2018 amendments effectively reversed that democratic process. He submitted that the amended constitution granted extensive powers to the party chief, creating what the Election Commission later described as a power centre around the leader. The Supreme Court had also previously questioned whether the revised constitution had transformed the party into a one-person structure.

Kaul maintained that the dispute was not merely a matter of paperwork or deciding which faction had submitted specific filings. He argued that the core legal question remained who possessed the authority to define a political party through its constitution, organisational structure, and office-bearers. He asserted that the existence of organisational bodies could not by itself establish internal democracy if their functioning depended solely on the pleasure of one individual.

Kaul also rejected claims that the Election Commission had acted abruptly in the matter, pointing out that the poll body’s concerns regarding internal democracy in the Shiv Sena dated back to 1997 and involved repeated notices, hearings, and sustained engagement.

The next hearing in the Supreme Court is scheduled for September 15, 2026.