Its order now was based on the same test that had formed the basis of the verdict in the Shiv Sena vs Shiv Sena case — the party’s legislative strength.
Speaking to reporters in Delhi, Supriya Sule, an MP and part of the faction led by her father Sharad Pawar, said she was not surprised by the EC’s order. “It was expected that they will do to us what they did to the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray faction).”
“We will go to the Supreme Court because in the end, this party belongs only to (Sharad) Pawarsaheb. The entire world knows this. The way an invisible power has snatched it from him… we will see,” Sule, who represents the Pawar home turf Baramati, said.
Praful Patel, a Rajya Sabha MP who has aligned himself with the Ajit Pawar-led party, said on social media platform X: “With humility, we accept the decision of the Election Commission. Our commitment to serving the people remains unwavering…”
Shinde, now the Maharashtra CM, had rebelled against the Uddhav Thackeray-led undivided Shiv Sena and toppled the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government headed by Thackeray in June 2022.
Shinde, supported by the majority of MLAs, joined hands with the BJP to form a government with himself as CM. Both sides filed disqualification petitions against each other, while Shinde also claimed the Shiv Sena’s name and symbol in the EC.
The EC ruled in Shinde’s favour in February 2023.
In July 2023, Ajit Pawar did what Shinde had done a year ago. He rebelled against the Sharad Pawar-led undivided NCP with the majority of MLAs and joined hands with the ruling allies. Ajit Pawar was appointed deputy CM in the Maharashtra government.
Also Read: ‘Triumph of truth’, ‘win for morality’: Uddhav & Shinde both claim victory after SC order on Sena vs Sena row
NCP vs NCP and Sena vs Sena
The EC in its order noted that in the dispute between the two factions of the NCP, the fight over the symbol predated the issue of both sides serving disqualification notices against each other, unlike in the Shiv Sena vs Shiv Sena dispute where it was the other way round.
The EC stated that on 1 July, it received a petition dated 30 June from Ajit Pawar saying that Sharad Pawar, “claiming to be the national party president”, was “running the party in total disregard of its constitution and rules”.
Ajit Pawar, MLA from Baramati, led a rebellion and joined the Shinde-led state cabinet only on 2 July.
In both cases, the EC considered the same three tests to settle the dispute over the party name and symbol — test of aims and objectives, party constitution and test of majority in the party organisation and legislative wing.
In both cases, the EC gave reasons why the first two tests and the test of organisational majority could not be applied.
For the test of aims and objectives, the EC order mentioned eight points from the party’s official objectives. These are promoting nationalism, maintaining the unity and integrity of India, promoting economic growth, strengthening the rule of law and constitutional order, empowerment of weaker sections and promoting science and technology, among others.
The EC said that in the present dispute, neither of the two factions had made any substantial claim that their side was following the aims and objectives of the party and that the other side was not. “Therefore, the application of this test will not lead to any conclusion,” it said.
In the dispute between the Shinde-led and Thackeray-led factions of the Shiv Sena too, the EC had said neither of the two factions had made any significant arguments, and that the test of the party’s organisational strength and which faction weighed more on this scale was found to be “indeterminable and non-conclusive”.
Moving on to the test of the party’s constitution, the EC said that in its previous orders it had found this test to be of little help since the act of expulsion and counter-expulsion happens every time there is a dispute among rival factions.
The EC said that the Sharad Pawar-led faction expelled Ajit Pawar and the other dissenting MLAs without “adhering to the provisions of the party constitution”. On the other hand, the Sharad Pawar faction has claimed that Ajit Pawar was elected as the chief of the party by the party’s MLAs, which is also not in line with the party’s constitution.
So, the EC concluded that the test of the party’s constitution could not be considered as “both the factions have been found to be violating the provisions of the party constitution”.
In its verdict in the Shiv Sena case, the EC had criticised the undivided Shiv Sena’s constitution as “undemocratic”, saying that the electoral college that is supposed to elect the party president is nominated by none other than the party president himself.
The test of majority
To apply the test of majority, the EC considered organisational as well as legislative majority.
The EC noted that the NCP followed a pyramid-like structure where the existence of the higher body is dependent on the existence of the lower body structure. In the party, the delegates of the block committees form the state committee. Further, a tenth of the state committee members form the national committee, and all presidents of the state committees also form part of the national committee. All members of the state committees are delegates of the national convention.
From among these delegates, 10 proposers are required to “propose the name of one of the delegates as a candidate to the election for the NCP president’s post,” the EC said.
The EC added that there were no details to show whether elections to the posts of block committees, district committees and state committees were even held.
“It was argued that neither the election of the petitioner (Ajit Pawar faction) as party president by MLAs was as per the party constitution nor the alleged open national convention was called as per the party constitution… the petitioner’s faction was also not acting according to the provisions of the party constitution, and assessing the organisational support base on their claims will be futile,” the EC said.
In the Shiv Sena matter too, the EC had said that the test of majority in the organisational wing could not “yield determinable or satisfactory finding”.
So, in both cases, it was the party’s legislative strength that led the EC to take a decision on which faction should get the party’s symbol.
The EC said the total number of legislators with the NCP (MPs, MLAs, and MLCs) stands at 81. Fifty-seven affidavits were filed in support of Ajit Pawar while 28 affidavits were filed in favour of Sharad Pawar. Five MLAs and one Lok Sabha MP submitted affidavits for both. Even if these six affidavits were considered in favour of the Sharad Pawar faction, the Ajit Pawar faction would still have a numerical majority, the EC explained.
While giving its order in the Shiv Sena vs Shiv Sena dispute, the EC had said that the recognition of a political party is based on the number of votes it polls in elections to legislative assemblies and the Lok Sabha, as well as the number of its elected representatives. It added that the test of legislative majority showed “qualitative superiority in Shinde’s favour”.
EC vs Supreme Court
In case of the dispute between two factions of the Shiv Sena, disqualification pleas were pending before the SC when the EC gave its decision in February last year. The Supreme Court, eventually, in May last year gave its ruling putting the ball in the court of Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar.
The Supreme Court said it could not restore the MVA government as Thackeray had quit without facing a floor test, but raised questions about how the Shinde government was formed. It also questioned then Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s decision in asking the MVA government to face a floor test.
Further, the SC criticised Narwekar’s decision to recognise the Shinde faction whip, calling it “illegal”, as it was taken without a proper inquiry into which faction of the Shiv Sena was the legitimate party.
It directed the Speaker to conduct a proper inquiry and take a decision, which Narwekar did last month and gave a ruling on the same basis as the EC’s — legislative strength.
While giving its order in the NCP dispute, the EC produced certain paragraphs from the Supreme Court order on the Shiv Sena dispute to highlight why it doesn’t need to wait for the dispute within the NCP over disqualification notices served to MLAs from both sides to be settled in the Supreme Court before giving its order.
“Proceedings before one constitutional authority cannot be halted in anticipation of the decision of another constitutional authority,” the EC quoted the Supreme Court order as saying.
Quoting further from the Supreme Court order from May last year, the EC said its decision on the symbol needn’t be consistent with the decision of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law.)
“The decision of the Speaker that a member of the House is disqualified for voluntarily giving up the membership of the political party would only disqualify them from the House. It would not lead to an automatic expulsion of the member from the political party,” the EC said in its order, quoting from last year’s Supreme Court judgment.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: How Uddhav is rebuilding his Sena for 2024 after Shinde’s defection blow