Supreme Court: Majority Legislators Cannot Override Political Party's Authority

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 5, 2026) made it clear that a group of MLAs or MPs cannot override the official directives of their parent political party merely because they hold a majority among elected members. The observation came during a hearing in the prolonged dispute between the Shiv Sena factions led by Uddhav Thackeray and Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde over who represents the real party and is entitled to its election symbol.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing arguments on the validity of the Election Commission's decision to recognise the Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and allot it the party symbol.

Justice Bagchi observed orally: "The control of the political party subsists over the legislature party. Any valid decision of the political party has to prevail over the will of the majority of the legislature party." This statement underscores the constitutional question at the heart of the case: the relationship between a political party and its elected legislators under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with disqualification on grounds of defection.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Thackeray, argued that the "mergers" orchestrated by a faction of MLAs or MPs were not dictated by democratic or ideological powers but were a "naked pursuit of power." He said allowing such actions would reduce the electoral process to a farce, as the verdict of the people could be changed through manipulation and defection.

"You are carrying this shenanigan to an absurd level where the entire electoral process becomes a farce because the electoral verdict can be changed through manipulation and defection. The government that comes into existence is not the government that the people voted for," Mr. Sibal submitted. He asked whether a few legislators could unilaterally decide a "merger" with another party without the knowledge of the parent political party.

Referring to an earlier Supreme Court judgment in the Shiv Sena case, Mr. Sibal said rebel legislators cannot be allowed to "conflate" the political party with the legislative party. "If this is allowed, you can topple any government at any point in time. Legislators can switch over, form a new government and not bother about the political party," he argued.

The court indicated the need to strike a balance between the electorate's decision to vote a party to power and the individual representatives' liberty to express genuine disagreement with the party's decisions.

Mr. Sibal also challenged the Election Commission's decision, arguing that it was erroneously based on which faction had a majority in the legislature party. He contended that the concept of a "split" in the legislature party under the Tenth Schedule was unknown. A split, as a defence against the charge of defection under the Tenth Schedule, while it was in existence, only related to the political party, not the legislature party.

The political crisis in Maharashtra began in 2022 when Mr. Shinde, backed by 40 of the 55 Shiv Sena MLAs, rebelled against the leadership of Mr. Thackeray. The rebellion led to the collapse of the Thackeray-led government and the formation of a new government with the BJP. The Tenth Schedule, originally introduced to combat defection, allowed a split as a defence if one-third of the legislators defected, but this provision was removed by the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003. The present case centres on whether the actions of the Shinde faction constitute a merger under the Tenth Schedule or amount to voluntary giving up of party membership.

A 2023 Constitution Bench judgment in Subhash Desai versus Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, confirmed that the "original political party" and "legislature party" are distinguishable concepts. The court has not yet delivered its final judgment in this matter, and the hearing is continuing.

The Supreme Court's ruling in this case is expected to have significant implications for political stability and the enforcement of anti-defection laws across the country. It will determine the extent to which a political party can control its legislators and whether a majority of legislators can effectively override the party's central leadership.