Shiv Sena Split Case: Supreme Court Resumes Final Hearing as Shinde Faction Defends EC Decision
Maharashtra, September 16, 2026: The long-running Shiv Sena dispute has returned to the centre of Maharashtra’s Politics as the Supreme Court resumed final hearings concerning the split in the party and the disqualification of MLAs from the Eknath Shinde-led faction.
The case involves petitions challenging the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s decision concerning the rival Shiv Sena factions. The Supreme Court is examining issues connected with the political split, the role of the Speaker and the Election Commission’s decision in the dispute.
The Shinde faction is defending the Election Commission’s decision that recognised its organisational majority in the Shiv Sena dispute. Senior lawyer Neeraj Kaul is representing the Shinde camp during the current proceedings, according to reports on Wednesday.
The dispute dates back to the political developments that resulted in a split within Shiv Sena. The matter subsequently moved through constitutional and legal institutions, including the Election Commission and the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker.
The Supreme Court proceedings have attracted considerable attention because the outcome could have implications for the interpretation of party splits, legislative disqualification proceedings and the authority of constitutional bodies in such disputes.
The case has remained an important subject of discussion among Political Parties (opens in a new tab) in Maharashtra. Both factions have continued to maintain their respective positions over the leadership and organisational control of Shiv Sena.
The dispute also demonstrates the role of the Lok Sabha (opens in a new tab), Rajya Sabha and Vidhan Sabha institutions in India's broader parliamentary system, although the present case primarily concerns the Maharashtra Assembly and the internal dispute over the Shiv Sena organisation.
The Supreme Court hearing has also become part of the wider Political War between rival political groups in Maharashtra. Leaders from the competing camps have continued to present different interpretations of the legal and political developments surrounding the case.
