TMC Explores Legal Options as Supreme Court Shiv Sena Verdict Offers Reference Point

Soumyadip Mullick, MP, 5 June 2026, Kolkata : As the Trinamool Congress explores legal options amid claims by a rebel bloc that it represents the “real” party, constitutional experts are pointing to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Shiv Sena dispute, which laid down principles that could become relevant in any future battle over party identity.

The Maharashtra political crisis of 2022 raised a question that may now resonate in Bengal: can a group of legislators claim ownership of a political party solely on the strength of its numbers in the legislature?

In its 2023 Constitution Bench verdict, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between a political party and its legislature party, holding that the two are “distinguishable concepts”.

The court ruled that the authority to appoint the whip and the leader in the House rests with the political party and not with the legislature party.

The observation came amid rival Shiv Sena factions staking competing claims to legitimacy following the rebellion led by Eknath Shinde.

The court also held that the Speaker’s decision recognising the whip and leader backed by the legislature faction was contrary to law.

It directed that the Speaker recognise the whip and leader duly authorised by the political party in accordance with the party constitution, underscoring the importance of the party’s organisational structure in determining authority within the legislature.

The Constitution Bench reiterated that following the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, the defence of a “split” is no longer available to legislators facing disqualification proceedings.

A breakaway faction, therefore, cannot avoid anti-defection consequences merely by claiming that it represents a separate group within the parent party.

Significantly, however, the Supreme Court did not decide which faction constituted the “real” Shiv Sena. Instead, it held that proceedings before the Speaker under the anti-defection law and proceedings before the Election Commission relating to party identity and election symbols could continue simultaneously.

The Shiv Sena episode subsequently saw rival claims over the party’s identity being adjudicated under the Symbols Order.

For legal observers, however, the broader significance of the verdict lies in the principles it laid down.