Maintaining democracy in India is a shared responsibility across state institutions rather than the exclusive obligation of the judiciary, the Supreme Court stated during a hearing on the Shiv Sena leadership and symbol dispute.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana cautioned on Thursday against underestimating other constitutional bodies. The observations came as Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Shiv Sena faction led by Uddhav Bal Thackeray, urged the court to establish legal rules addressing prolonged delays by legislative assembly speakers in deciding disqualification petitions.
Debate Over Legislative Delays
Sibal argued that assembly speakers across various political parties routinely fail to adjudicate disqualification matters in a timely manner. He asserted that because ruling parties benefit from these delays, Parliament is unlikely to pass corrective legislation, leaving the Supreme Court as the primary authority capable of resolving the issue and preserving democratic values.
In response, Justice Bagchi stated that protecting democracy remains a collective duty, while Chief Justice Kant emphasized that other institutions maintain a strong commitment to their roles and that Parliament also possesses the ability to address the problem. Sibal maintained that while legislative bodies will continue to enact laws, the judiciary remains the ultimate forum for upholding foundational constitutional principles.
Challenge To Election Commission Authority
The court was hearing petitions filed by the Thackeray faction contesting the Election Commission of India’s ruling that recognized the group led by Eknath Shinde as the legitimate Shiv Sena and awarded it the party’s bow and arrow election symbol.
During the proceedings, Sibal also challenged the Election Commission’s exercise of power under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. He criticized the commission’s reliance on events occurring after a petition is filed to evaluate claims of party ownership, characterizing that legal approach as improper.
The Supreme Court will resume hearing the matter on August 18.
