The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 22 July issued notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker's office and six rebel Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs on a petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Arvind Sawant, challenging the Speaker's decision to recognise their merger with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena under the anti-defection law. The court, however, declined to stay the Speaker's order.

What the Court Ordered

A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed responses from all respondents and listed the matter for further hearing after two weeks. Notices were served on Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, the Joint Secretary of the Lok Sabha, and the six MPs: Bhausaheb Waghchaure, Nagesh Patil Ashtikar, Omprakash Raje Nimbalkar, Sanjay Bandu Jadhav, Sanjay Deshmukh, and Sanjay Dina Patil.

Notably, the apex court stopped short of granting interim relief — Speaker Birla's recognition of the merger remains operative for now.

The Core Legal Challenge

Sawant's petition contends that the Speaker's order has gutted Shiv Sena (UBT)'s parliamentary presence, reducing its Lok Sabha strength from nine MPs to three. The legal argument centres on Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule — the constitutional provision governing mergers as an exception to anti-defection disqualification.

Sawant argues that no merger of the original political party was ever initiated or approved by party president Uddhav Thackeray, and that legislators cannot independently engineer a party merger to escape disqualification. The six MPs had approached the Speaker claiming they constituted the requisite two-thirds of the legislature party — a threshold under the Tenth Schedule — and sought recognition of their merger with the Shinde faction.

What Shiv Sena (UBT) Had Argued Before the Speaker

Before Speaker Birla passed his order, the Shiv Sena (UBT) had formally opposed any recognition of the merger, asserting that Paragraph 4 permits legislators only to accept or reject a merger initiated by the original political party — not to independently bring one about. Despite these objections, the Speaker recognised the merger, after which the six MPs ceased to be members of the Shiv Sena (UBT) Parliamentary Party.

Kapil Sibal's Broader Constitutional Challenge

In a parallel development, senior advocate Kapil Sibal has filed a separate writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the prevailing constitutional interpretation of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule. Filed against the Union of India, the petition argues that the current reading of the provision allows splinter groups of legislators to sidestep disqualification through mergers, thereby undermining the very purpose of the anti-defection law.

Mentioning the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Sibal warned that if the current trend continued, 'the Tenth Schedule will become meaningless.' His petition seeks a fresh constitutional examination of how political mergers are governed under the anti-defection framework.

Why This Case Matters

This dispute is part of the broader Shiv Sena split that has been litigated across courts and constitutional bodies since 2022. The Tenth Schedule has come under repeated scrutiny as successive defection episodes — in Maharashtra, Manipur, and elsewhere — have tested the limits of its merger exception. Critics argue the provision, as currently interpreted, creates a loophole that incentivises organised defection over genuine party mergers. A Supreme Court ruling on the constitutional validity of the Speaker's decision could reset the legal standard governing political mergers across India.