Shinde defected for power, not ideology: Uddhav counsel

MUMBAI: The first day of oral arguments in the Sena Vs Sena battle in disqualification petitions, the Shiv Sena (UBT) counsel Devadatt Kamat argued that the split engineered by Eknath Shinde in 2022 was indeed an act of defection and that the claim of the defectors that Uddhav Thackeray was never appointed chief of the party was false

MUMBAI: The first day of oral arguments in the Sena Vs Sena battle in disqualification petitions, the Shiv Sena (UBT) counsel Devadatt Kamat argued that the split engineered by Eknath Shinde in 2022 was indeed an act of defection and that the claim of the defectors that Uddhav Thackeray was never appointed chief of the party was false. The split was orchestrated for political gains, said Kamat, and hence the claim that Shinde was leading the “original Shiv Sena” is false.

HT Image

After the written arguments from both sides concluded last week, the oral arguments began before Assembly speaker Rahul Narwekar in Vidhan Bhavan, Nagpur, from Monday. Kamat, who was assisted by counsels including Rohit Sharma, is expected to complete it on Tuesday, following which Shinde’s counsel Mahesh Jethmalani is expected to begin his argument.

The Shinde faction had, in its affidavits, challenged Uddhav Thackeray’s position as chief of the party, and his right to appoint whips and office bearers. Kamat countered this, saying, “The merger of the defected group into another party was Shinde’s only solution. The legislature party is limited to certain privileges and cannot be treated as a political party. The statute of schedule 10 (of the Indian constitution) will crumble if not complied with.”

Kamat then challenged Shinde faction’s claim that the constitution of the party had no provision of the post of Paksha Pramukh (party chief) as it was never amended to that effect after 1999. “The 1999 amendment had the post of Shiv Sena Pramukh and Balasaheb Thackeray was elected as one, they (Shinde faction) have argued. After the sad demise of Balasaheb in November 2012, the national executive of the party elected Uddhav Thackeray as Paksha Pramukh in 2013. Even if we consider the 1999 amendment to be the valid one, the provision of Sena pramukh is equivalent to the post of Paksha Pramukh; it is a mere difference of nomenclature,” said Kamat, insisting that the constitution was indeed amended in 1999.

Kamat said that both the Election Commission (EC) and the1989 order recognises the organisational structure of the party, which leaves no room for a vacuum in leadership. “They claim that Uddhav Thackeray was never appointed chief of the party – who then has been leading the party for years? Who was issuing A&B forms to candidates in the elections? One cannot claim that Thackeray’s appointment by the national executive was illegal as it will go against the established canons,” he said.

The counsel then emphasised that ideological differences that led to a group under Shinde defecting was unacceptable. Kamat argued, had “Shinde lost the faith in Thackeray’s leadership, he could have moved a resolution in the party meeting for his removal; or moved the EC questioning the organisational structure”.

“Without any documents to prove the existence, how can a leader say that he is the party, especially when an established structure existed,” he argued.

Kamat said that Supreme Court was conscious about recognising the original party. He cited the Nitish Kumar Vs Sharad Yadav case of 2016, after Kumar joined hands with BJP to form the government. Kamat said that the ECI in that case had ruled that the existence of party cannot be challenged just by claiming that the election process was a sham. He also said that the appointment of the whip and group leader was done by Thackeray as head of the political party – that should be considered and not the appointments made by Shinde.

Highlights

Key points discussed

Question of Shinde faction’s defection and Uddhav Thackeray as party chief.

The provision of party chief in the constitution of Shiv Sena, envisioned by the late Bal Thackeray.

The organisational structure recognised by EC.

Counsel refers to the Nitish Kumar Vs Sharad Yadav case of 2016, after Kumar joined hands with BJP to form the government.