Amid reports of a possible rebellion by a section of its Lok Sabha MPs, the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT) has written to Speaker Om Birla, urging him not to entertain any request from rebel lawmakers seeking separate recognition in Parliament.

In a detailed letter sent on behalf of the party, Sena (UBT) parliamentary party leader Arvind Sawant argued that the Constitution no longer recognises a “split” in a political party and that no rival faction can claim legitimacy independent of the parent organisation.

The move is being seen as a pre-emptive attempt by the Shiv Sena (UBT) to block any repeat of the 2022 Eknath Shinde-style rebellion before rebel MPs formally approach the Speaker seeking recognition in the House. Shinde walked out with MLAs in June 2022, triggering the split in the undivided Shiv Sena and eventually leading to the Election Commission recognising the Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena

This is at a time when rebel MPs are in Delhi and likely to meet Speaker Birla.

Sawant said reports had emerged that certain MPs elected on the party’s symbol were either planning to approach, or had already approached, the Speaker seeking recognition as a separate group or merger with another political party in Lok Sabha.

Referring to these reports, Sawant said any such move would have no constitutional backing. “The Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) is one political party and remains so in the eyes of law,” he said in the letter.

In the communication, Sawant also underlined that the party’s claim to be the “real Shiv Sena” remains pending before the Supreme Court.

“Our claim that we represent the real Shiv Sena is subjudice in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and this letter is being written without prejudice to that claim,” Sawant said.

Sawant argued that Parliament cannot recognise multiple formations claiming to represent the same political party.

“The constitutional framework does not envisage the existence of multiple competing formations claiming to represent the same political party within the House. Consequently, there can be only one authorised party leadership in Parliament, one recognised party whip, and one recognised party structure acting under the authority of the political party,” he said.

Numbers alone don’t matter

Sawant argued that, after the 91st Constitutional Amendment in 2003, the anti-defection law no longer recognises a split in a political party, removing protections that earlier existed for legislators who break away from their original party. “The constitutional recognition formerly accorded to a split no longer exists,” he said.

The Sena (UBT) leader also argued that MPs elected on a party symbol derive their authority from the parent political party and cannot independently claim legitimacy merely by forming a separate legislature group.

Citing the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling in the 2023 Maharashtra political crisis, Sawant said the court had clearly upheld the primacy of the political party over the legislature wing.

“The judgment unequivocally affirms the primacy of the political party over the legislature party. The authority to determine leadership within the House, to appoint the whip, and to issue directions regarding legislative conduct flows from the political party. The legislature party does not possess an independent source of authority divorced from the political party,” he added.

In effect, Sawant argued that MPs cannot independently claim authority separate from their parent organisation merely on the basis of their numbers in Parliament.

The Sena (UBT) MP further argued that any attempt by a section of MPs to create a separate leadership structure inside Parliament or appoint a rival whip would be unconstitutional.

“Any claim by a section of members to establish a separate leadership structure, appoint a rival whip, or function autonomously from the political party would be fundamentally inconsistent with this principle,” Sawant wrote.

Rejecting any interpretation that support of two-thirds MPs alone is enough for legal protection under anti-defection provisions, Sawant said public discussion around the possible split was based on an incorrect reading of the Constitution.

“Public reports appear to proceed on the erroneous assumption that the numerical requirement alone is sufficient. That is contrary to the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court,” the letter stated.

Explaining the legal position, Sawant said in the letter that an exemption under the Tenth Schedule is available only when the original political party itself merges with another political party and not merely when legislators decide to split on their own.

“Paragraph 4 requires the cumulative satisfaction of two distinct conditions: first, a merger of the original political party; and second, the support of not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned,” the letter said.

‘May attract consequences’

Sawant argued that since Shiv Sena (UBT) has not merged with any other political party, no group of MPs can claim constitutional protection merely on the strength of numbers.

The Sena (UBT) leader also invoked Lok Sabha procedural rules, including Speaker’s Direction 121, arguing that parliamentary rules do not permit recognition of a faction acting against the authority of the original political party.

“They do not provide any mechanism for recognition of a faction operating in opposition to the leadership and authority of the political party,” the letter said.

Sawant urged Birla to ensure that Shiv Sena (UBT) continues to be recognised as one political party in the House and that no separate status is granted to any rebel faction.