Shiv Sena UBT Moves Supreme Court Against Lok Sabha Speaker Approving Merger of Six MPs with Shinde Sena

The Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) faction moved the Supreme Court of India on July 21, 2026, challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to approve the merger of six of its Members of Parliament with the rival Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena faction. The merger, approved by Speaker Om Birla on July 18, 2026, has reduced the UBT faction's strength in the Lok Sabha from nine to just three MPs, while the Shinde Sena's numbers have swelled to 13. Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appeared for the UBT faction before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Pancholi.

The Speaker's Decision: Merger Under the Anti-Defection Law

The constitutional framework governing party mergers and defections in India is contained in the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, commonly known as the anti-defection law. Under this framework, a merger of a legislative party is recognised when not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party agree to the merger with another party. On July 18, 2026, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla accepted the merger of six UBT MPs, namely Sanjay Deshmukh, Sanjay Jadhav, Sanjay Dina Patil, Nagesh Patil-Ashtikar, Omprakash Rajenimbalkar, and Bhausaheb Wakchaure, with the Shinde-led faction. The six MPs reportedly constituted two-thirds of the UBT's legislative party strength of nine, satisfying the numerical threshold under the Tenth Schedule.

UBT's Challenge: Questions of Constitutional Validity

The UBT faction's petition before the Supreme Court is expected to raise fundamental questions about the Speaker's exercise of power under the Tenth Schedule. The anti-defection law has been a subject of intense judicial scrutiny in recent years, with courts examining whether Speakers act in a quasi-judicial capacity and whether their decisions are subject to judicial review. The Shiv Sena split itself has been the subject of landmark litigation, with the Supreme Court previously examining the constitutional dimensions of intra-party disputes. The present challenge adds another layer to this evolving jurisprudence, touching on whether the Speaker's approval of the merger was procedurally sound and substantively justified. This case sits within a broader pattern of constitutional law challenges reaching the Supreme Court on matters of institutional governance.

Political Implications and the Shrinking UBT Bloc

The immediate political consequence of the merger is the dramatic weakening of the UBT faction's presence in the Lok Sabha. With only three MPs remaining, the faction loses significant legislative bargaining power. The Shinde Sena, now commanding 13 seats, consolidates its position as the dominant Shiv Sena faction in Parliament. This development comes against the backdrop of an ongoing power struggle between the two factions, which has played out across multiple legal and political arenas since the split in 2022. The Supreme Court's handling of this petition will be closely watched, not only for its immediate political implications but also for the precedent it sets on the limits of the Speaker's authority under the anti-defection framework. Similar questions about the boundaries of executive and quasi-judicial power have arisen in cases where the Court has pulled up the Centre for administrative delays affecting individual rights.

Judicial Review of Speaker's Decisions: The Legal Framework

The question of whether and to what extent courts can review a Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule has been debated since the landmark Kihoto Hollohan judgment of 1992, where the Supreme Court held that the Speaker's orders under the anti-defection law are subject to judicial review. Subsequent decisions have clarified that while the Speaker exercises quasi-judicial functions, courts can intervene where there is a violation of constitutional provisions, mala fides, or a failure to follow principles of natural justice. The UBT faction's challenge will likely invoke these principles, arguing that the merger was not a genuine exercise of legislative will but an engineered defection dressed up as a merger. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how the anti-defection law is applied in future intra-party disputes. Courts have shown increasing willingness to examine procedural fairness in institutional decisions, as seen in cases involving transfer of contempt cases to High Courts with strict deadlines and early release policies for vulnerable prisoners.

Related Reading

For related constitutional law coverage, see our articles on the Supreme Court's directions on bulldozer demolition contempt cases, condonation of delay applications in long-pending matters, and the NEET-UG 2026 retest challenge before the Supreme Court.

Key Takeaways

The Shiv Sena UBT's challenge to the Lok Sabha Speaker's merger approval raises foundational questions about the anti-defection law and the limits of the Speaker's authority. With six MPs having crossed over, the UBT faction's parliamentary presence has been reduced to a fraction of its former strength, making this petition as much about political survival as constitutional principle. The Supreme Court's decision will clarify whether mergers under the Tenth Schedule can be subjected to meaningful judicial review and what safeguards exist against engineered defections. As the case progresses, it will be a critical test of the balance between legislative autonomy and constitutional accountability in India's parliamentary democracy.