SC declines interim stay on Speaker’s decision to approve Uddhav Sena MPs’ ‘merger’ with Shinde faction
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 22, 2026) refused to grant interim permission to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s order recognizing the “merger” of six of the nine Shiv Sena (Uddhav Bal Thackeray) MPs with the rival Shiv Sena faction led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde ahead of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. However, the court agreed to hear the objection to the Speaker’s decision two weeks later.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe sought the Lok Sabha Speaker’s response on the petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) parliamentary party leader Arvind Sawant, who challenged the July 18, 2026 circular by the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat recognizing the so-called merger as “ex facie unconstitutional, illegal and perverse”.
unilateral decision
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing on Mr. Sawant’s behalf, argued that six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs had “unilaterally” decided to merge with a rival political party without the approval of the parent political party. “I pray for an interim order… Six MPs have unilaterally decided to merge Shiv Sena (UBT) with our rival political party,” he said.
Mr. Kamat also maintained that the circular recognizing the merger was issued by the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha Secretariat and not by the Speaker. He also pointed out that disqualification petitions against MPs are pending before the Speaker of the Parliament, so there is no reason to recognize or approve the merger at this stage.
However, Justice Narasimha refused to grant an interim stay, observing that the court would consider the matter after receiving the reply of the Speaker. “We are making a report. Write down your meter. We will evaluate it,” he said.
Urging the court to issue an interim injunction on the next hearing date, Mr. Kamat stated that the matter involved issues of “serious constitutional importance” and that the petition would become ineffective if the injunction was postponed. “There is a very urgent situation, so I beg your Lordships. Ultimately, your Lordships are aware that all these processes succumb to the flow of time. Time is of the essence. This is my only request,” he said in court.
However, the Board refused to give such assurance and sent the matter to hearing two weeks later.
Ahead of the Monsoon Session, Mr. Birla noticed the merger of six Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs with the Shiv Sena led by Mr. Shinde. The six MPs are Sanjay Deshmukh (Yavatmal), Sanjay Jadhav (Parbhani), Sanjay Dina Patil (North East Mumbai), Nagesh Patil Ashtikar (Hingoli), Omraje Nimbalkar (Dharashiv) and Bhausaheb Wakchaure (Shirdi). All six were named as respondents in Mr. Sawant’s petition before the Supreme Court.
With the recognition of the merger, the strength of the Shinde-led Shiv Sena in the Lok Sabha increased from seven to 13, while the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction was reduced to three MPs.
In his petition, Mr. Sawant said that six MPs were nominated by the Shiv Sena (UBT) to contest the Lok Sabha elections and were elected on the party’s name and symbol (burning torch). “The entire organisation, rank and leadership of the political party invested tremendous effort and resources from their respective constituencies to campaign and secure their victory,” he said.
‘Voters were betrayed’
He also suggested that MPs had “betrayed the faith of the electorate” by joining a rival political group and acted in a way that insulted “the concept of parliamentary democracy”. Accordingly, he requested the Supreme Court to annul the said circular and issue necessary instructions.
Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-secession law) provides that members who are members of ‘any political party’ will be disqualified for secession from the House if they voluntarily renounce their membership of the party. Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Amendment details what makes a merger valid. The first condition is that the main political party must merge with another party. The second condition is that after the merger, two-thirds of the members must accept and adopt this merger. In short, the merger process must originate from the main political party.
Concepts distinguishable under the Tenth Schedule
2023 Constitutional Court decision Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary to Governor of Maharashtra It confirmed that ‘original political party’ and ‘legislature party’ are “separable concepts” within the meaning of the Tenth Schedule.
The decision stated that the Tenth Schedule recognizes the independent existence of a legislative party party only to a limited extent in providing a defense to members who supported a merger or division initiated by the original political party (the latter was enacted as a defense in 2003) against a collective disqualification suit.
“The merger of parties in the State legislature led by the Leader of Opposition is not only a constitutional sin but also amounts to a direct attack on the democratic structure of the House,” argues a separate petition filed by Congress leader Girish Chodankar before the Supreme Court. The petition challenges the Bombay High Court’s January 16, 2025 order, which upheld the switch of legislators to the BJP as a valid “merger”.
It was published – 22 July 2026 16:19 IST
