'Have Seen What Delay Does': Supreme Court Cites Shiv Sena In Trinamool Hearing

The Supreme Court today observed that delay in solving matters linked to factional fights over a political party's name and symbol would be detrimental to the electoral process. The observation came during the hearing of a petition filed by former West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee against the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to freeze the Trinamool Congress's party name and its flower-and-grass election symbol.

The ECI had taken this decision after two factions of the Trinamool emerged following its defeat in the hands of the BJP in the last assembly election and an exodus thereafter of party leaders to a camp led by Ritabrata Banerjee. A few leaders remained on Mamata Banerjee's side.

Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing Mamata Banerjee, told the Supreme Court that the ECI's freeze order came long after they had already entered the electoral process, referring to the upcoming bypolls in Nandigram and Rejinagar assembly constituency which will be held on October 6 and 9, respectively.

"The Election Commission is setting a precedent everyday. Though this process is completely flawed, we cannot seek to stop the election at this stage," Sibal told a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

Citing the ECI's decision to freeze the party's name and symbol and allot two pairs of temporary ones to both the Trinamool factions, Sibal said the matter was such that they cannot approach any court and instead, the court "adjudicate on the question of this law."

The Supreme Court said it cannot intervene since the election process has already started. To this, Sibal replied that they were not seeking a stay on the election. The Supreme Court then observed it could direct the ECI to conduct hearings everyday and give a decision - since the order to freeze the party name and symbol was an interim one.

"We think the right order now can be for expeditious disposal and day-to-day hearing," Chief Justice Kant said.

Justice Bagchi referred to the ECI's position that under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Act, the poll body can pass an interim order to freeze the party symbol and stop rival groups from using the original name and symbol in an ongoing or upcoming election. This can remain so till the dispute is sorted.

Sibal said all they needed were the party name and symbol restored to them fast.

"Can the Election Commission delay matters, and then pass orders in the midst of elections knowing that I won't have a remedy? You have passed this order in the midst of elections. I can't file a writ petition. I can't go to court," Sibal said.

Senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ritabrata Banerjee, who heads the other faction opposed to Mamata Banerjee's leadership, told the Supreme Court that orders similar to the one given by the ECI in the Trinamool matter were regularly passed by the poll body in the case involving Maharashtra's Shiv Sena.

"We have seen what delay does in Shiv Sena," Justice Bagchi said.

The matter will be heard next on September 28.

Justice Bagchi's observation alluded to the question of whether the ECI adequately considered the possibility of denying the reserved bow-and-arrow symbol to both the Eknath Shinde and the Uddhav Thackeray factions of the Shiv Sena and asking them to contest elections on separate symbols.

The Shiv Sena dispute revolves around the question whether a legislative majority could be considered a "safe test" to determine the ownership of a political party, particularly when disqualification proceedings were pending against the very MLAs who constituted that majority.

This had triggered a challenge by the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction against the ECI's recognition of the Eknath Shinde faction as the original Shiv Sena. The dispute also involves challenges to the Maharashtra Speaker's decision not to disqualify MLAs of the Shinde camp.