Shiv Sena Case – High drama unfolded outside the Supreme Court in New Delhi following a crucial hearing on the Shiv Sena name and bow-and-arrow symbol dispute, as leaders from rival factions engaged in an intense verbal confrontation.
Shiv Sena Case – Tensions Escalate Outside Supreme Court Following Legal Arguments
A heated exchange erupted between leaders of the rival Shiv Sena factions directly outside the Supreme Court premises in New Delhi following a high-stakes legal hearing regarding the party’s official name and “bow and arrow” symbol. Senior leaders from the Uddhav Thackeray faction, including MPs Sanjay Raut and Anil Desai, came face-to-face with Eknath Shinde faction MP Naresh Mhaske. Video footage captured an intense verbal altercation as both sides exchanged sharp remarks in front of gathered media representatives.
Shiv Sena Case – Senior Advocates Debate Legality of Election Commission Order Before Apex Court
Inside the courtroom, a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana continued hearing petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s decision to allocate the original party name and symbol to the Eknath Shinde-led group. Representing the Thackeray faction, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that a split among elected legislative members cannot automatically be equated to a division within the broader organizational political party. The bench questioned the scope of the Election Commission’s authority and examined internal party democracy principles.
Shiv Sena Case – Political Friction Mounts Across Rival Factions as Final Arguments Continue
The altercation outside the apex court highlighted the deep political rift persisting between the two factions since the June 2022 party split. Party representatives defended their respective stances before reporters following the incident, with the Shinde faction asserting legislative legitimacy while the UBT faction reiterated its organizational foundation. The Supreme Court is set to continue hearing extended arguments from both sides before issuing a final verdict on the symbol ownership.
