MUMBAI: Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s verdict on the dispute within the Shiv Sena factions, has ignited a political firestorm, with Uddhav Thackeray labelling it as a “murder of democracy” and a premeditated “match-fixing” on Wednesday.”
Shiv Sena UBT Leaders Slam Speaker’s Verdict
Uddhav Thackeray, head of the Shiv Sena UBT faction, expressed strong disapproval, deeming the decision a direct insult to the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in favour of Sunil Prabhu’s appointment as chief whip. ”It was a match-fixing. The verdict is also an insult to the Supreme Court which had ruled that Sunil Prabhu’s appointment as chief whip was valid. We don’t accept this verdict, we are challenging it in the apex court,” Uddhav Thackeray said.
#WATCH | Former Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray says, “We will go among the people…We have been going among the people & we will fight together along with the people of the state…” pic.twitter.com/WJweypm76S
— ANI (@ANI) January 10, 2024
Sanjay Raut, another prominent figure in the UBT faction, went a step further, denouncing the decision as part of a larger “BJP conspiracy” to dismantle the party founded by the late Balasaheb Thackeray. Raut warned that the Shiv Sena would not succumb to this setback, vowing to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
Speaker Deliver’s Crucial Verdict
Speaker Narwekar, in delivering his crucial verdict, delved into the intricacies of the Shiv Sena constitution. He emphasized that the 2018 leadership structure, submitted to the Election Commission of India (ECI), did not align with the party’s constitution, leading to the dismissal of Uddhav Thackeray’s removal of Eknath Shinde as ”unconstitutional.”
Narwekar clarified that, based on the evidence and records available, no elections were held in 2013 and 2018. Despite acknowledging limited jurisdiction, he declared the 2018 constitution submitted to the ECI as the relevant one, highlighting that the party failed to submit any constitution to the Speaker’s office as per legislative rules.
Constitutional Conundrum: Shiv Sena’s Divergent Claims
The Speaker pointed out the conflicting versions of the constitution submitted by the rival factions, stressing the importance of relying on the constitution presented to the ECI before the emergence of factional disputes. He emphasized that the 1999 constitution of Shiv Sena, recognized by the ECI, serves as the valid constitution for determining the real political party.
In a significant revelation, Narwekar highlighted that the 2018 amended constitution lacked validity as it was not in the records of the ECI, adhering to Supreme Court orders. This revelation challenges the legitimacy of the leadership structure based on the 2018 constitution, further complicating the ongoing political turmoil.
Supreme Court’s Deadline For Speaker’s Judgement
The Supreme Court’s directive to Speaker Narwekar to deliver his judgment on disqualification petitions by January 10 has intensified the political drama in Maharashtra. As the factions gear up for a legal battle in the apex court, the repercussions of this decision are poised to reshape the state’s political landscape. The struggle for control within Shiv Sena continues, leaving democracy hanging in the balance.