Speaker has no option but to recognise Uddhav as Shiv Sena president, says lawyer
Mumbai: The Uddhav Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena on Monday contended that Maharashtra assembly speaker Rahul Narwekar has no option but to recoginse the faction led by Mr Thackeray as the Shiv Sena party.
Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the Thackeray faction, on Monday began his arguments in the disqualification petitions against Shiv Sena legislators. He said that the Speaker has to only “prima facie” determine the leadership structure of Shiv Sena and only Thackeray is the party president as per the Election Commission of India’s record.
Advocate Kamat argued that the Supreme Court while directing the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions, has asked him to “prima facie” determine the “leadership structure” of the party. Mr. Kamat said that the Speaker must only see who is the Shiv Sena leader as per the ECI records and does not need to go into details of Shiv Sena’s organisational structure.
“Words (used in the SC order) ‘prima facie determination’ can only mean that you look on the face of the registered party. You don't look at the evidence. You don't look behind the face,” he said.
The Eknath Shinde faction has claimed that the existing leadership structure is not in accordance with the Shiv Sena constitution amended in 1999. They have challenged Mr. Thackeray’s election to the post of ‘Paksha Pramukh’ because no such post exists in the party as per its constitution.
However, Mr. Kamat said that Mr. Thackeray was elected unopposed as the party president in 2018 for five years as per the party constitution. He further said that after Balasaheb Thackeray’s death, the post of ‘Shiv Sena Pramukh’ was freezed and a new post of ‘Paksha Pramukh’ was created. “This was done out of respect for Balasaheb. Nobody wanted to replace him as Shiv Sena Pramukh. But ‘Paksha Pramukh’ is the party president,” he said.
Advocate Kamat further argued that the challenge to Mr. Thackeray’s election as the party president was merely a stand taken to counter the disqualification petitions. He pointed out that nobody ever challenged his election for four years.
The Thackeray faction has also relied on the ECI order on the Janata Dal (United) dispute between Nitish Kumar and Sharad Yadav. In that case, the ECI has held that Nitish’s post-poll alliance with the BJP after breaking the pre-poll alliance with the Rashtriya Janata Dal cannot be the basis of his removal from the post of party president.
In the present case, one of the grounds taken by the Shinde faction is that Mr.Thackeray acted against the party constitution by breaking pre-poll alliance with the BJP and forming a government with the help of Congress and NCP, who are opposed to Shiv Sena’s Hindutva ideology.
“Entering into a post-poll alliance is not illegal. I have valid reasons for it. But it should not concern the ECI or the Speaker. To accept this argument is to build the mountain of absurdities,” advocate Kamat said.
Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who is appearing for the Shinde faction, told the Speaker that Mr. Kamat has relied upon several inadmissible documents in his arguments which are not on record. “Though I have not raised any objection during his arguments, I will show it when I argue the case tomorrow,” he said.
