Merger of Shiv–Sena UBT legislators with Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena

Case Description

On 18 July, the Lok Sabha Secretariat revised the party position in the Eighteenth Lok Sabha by recognising a change in the party affiliation of six Members of Parliament elected on the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) ticket. Arvind Ganpat Sawant, Leader of the Shiv Sena (UBT) Parliamentary Party in the Lok Sabha, subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision.

The petition questions the constitutional authority of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to recognise such a change outside the framework of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. It contends that Article 102(2), read with Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Tenth Schedule, contemplates questions of merger only in the course of disqualification proceedings before the Speaker. According to the petition, neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha framed under Article 118 confer an independent power on the Speaker to recognise a merger or change in party affiliation. It further argues that, if the impugned circular was issued independently by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the Secretariat too lacks such authority. The petition also alleges that the circular was issued without furnishing the material relied upon or recording reasons, rendering it arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and the principles of natural justice.

The controversy traces its origins to the 2024 General Elections, in which Shiv Sena (UBT) won nine seats in the Eighteenth Lok Sabha. The nine elected Members constituted the Shiv Sena UBT Parliamentary Party, with Sawant as its Leader in the House. In June 2026, news reports suggested that several Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs intended to join the Shiv Sena led by Eknath Shinde before the Monsoon Session of Parliament. Acting on the instructions of the party leadership, Sawant wrote to the Speaker on 16 June, stating that the original political party had not merged with any other political party and that a parliamentary party or a faction of legislators could not independently claim a merger. He requested that no decision be taken without first hearing the party.

On 22 June, the Lok Sabha Secretariat informed Sawant that he would be heard by the Speaker on 24 June. The following day, Sawant sought an adjournment because he was on an official parliamentary tour and requested copies of any representations, communications or memoranda submitted by the six MPs seeking recognition of an alleged merger or separate status. He also reiterated that Shiv Sena (UBT) had neither proposed nor consented to any merger. According to the petition, the request for adjournment was declined and the requested documents were not supplied.

Sawant nevertheless appeared before the Speaker on 24 June and filed written submissions reiterating that there had been no merger of the Shiv Sena (UBT) Political Party. He asserted that Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule does not permit legislators to bring about a merger of their own accord, but merely protects members from disqualification where the original political party has first merged with another political party. He also demanded copies of the representations allegedly submitted by the six MPs. The petition states that these documents were never furnished. On 13 July, Sawant addressed separate letters to each of the six MPs reiterating the party’s position that no merger had taken place.

On 18 July, two days before the commencement of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, the Joint Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat issued the impugned circular stating that “consequent upon the change in party affiliation of 6 Members of Shiv Sena (UBT) in Lok Sabha”, the party position in the Eighteenth Lok Sabha stood revised. The petition notes that the circular does not disclose whether the purported recognition flowed from an order or direction of the Speaker or whether it was undertaken independently by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. It nevertheless contends that, in either case, such recognition is beyond the constitutional powers of both authorities because the Speaker may examine a claim of merger only while exercising quasi-judicial powers under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule in disqualification proceedings. It further argues that legislators cannot themselves claim a merger in the absence of a merger of the original political party.

On 22 July, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice to the respondent in the matter. However, it declined to pass any interim order.