Battle for the Bow and Arrow

The Shiv Sena dispute before the Supreme Court is no longer just about MLAs and symbols, but about what legally defines a political party. AI generated image The fight over the Shiv Sena has moved well beyond Maharashtra’s familiar political theatre. In the Supreme Court, the dispute has narrowed to a question that is less dramatic on the surface but potentially far more consequential: what exactly makes a political party a political party? Is it the elected strength of its legislators? The...

min read

The Shiv Sena dispute before the Supreme Court is no longer just about MLAs and symbols, but about what legally defines a political party. AI generated image The fight over the Shiv Sena has moved well beyond Maharashtra’s familiar political theatre. In the Supreme Court, the dispute has narrowed to a question that is less dramatic on the surface but potentially far more consequential: what exactly makes a political party a political party? Is it the elected strength of its legislators? The organisation outside the legislature? The party constitution on record with the Election Commission? Or some combination of all three? That question lies at the centre of the legal battle between the factions led by Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray. Two Claims Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Shinde faction, has defended the Election Commission’s February 17, 2023 decision, recognising the Shinde camp as the Shiv Sena and allotting it the bow-and-arrow symbol. The Thackeray faction has challenged that decision. The bench is also dealing with challenges connected to the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s January 2024 decision on disqualification petitions. The Thackeray faction, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat, has drawn a sharp distinction between the political party and its legislature wing. Its argument is a group of MLAs breaking away from the legislative wing does not automatically mean that the political party itself has changed hands. The party’s organisation, structure and identity cannot simply be equated with the numbers sitting in the Assembly. The Shinde faction says the dispute was never merely about legislators walking out. According to its argument, the rupture extended into the wider political organisation, with competing meetings, resolutions and claims of support from party workers and functionaries. The legislative split was, in its telling, only one visible part of a larger party-wide conflict. That distinction determines whether the Election Commission could legitimately intervene under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order and decide which rival faction represented the recognised political party. Kaul has argued that the Commission was entitled to consider the wider organisational dispute rather than treating the matter as a purely legislative rebellion. Constitutional Tussle The courtroom fight has also brought an old Shiv Sena document back into the spotlight. Kaul has relied heavily on the constitution placed on record with the Election Commission after the poll panel raised objections to the party’s earlier structure. The material before the court says the Commission had, in the late 1990s, pushed for a more democratic organisational structure, including changes to the manner in which party office-bearers were selected. The 1999 constitution subsequently went on record. The Shinde side says the 2018 constitution represented a significant departure from that structure. Its argument is that the later arrangement concentrated substantial authority in the party chief and relied extensively on nominated or appointed office-bearers rather than elected organisational bodies. It has also questioned why its leaders participated in the organisational structure created under the 2018 arrangement and did not object to it at the time. Kaul has further argued that the 2018 constitution relied upon by the Thackeray faction was not registered with the Election Commission, while the 1999 constitution was on the Commission’s record. This has become a significant element of the Shinde faction’s case. The Thackeray faction, meanwhile, has relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier Constitution Bench judgment in the Subhash Desai matter to reinforce the distinction between a political party and its legislature party. The earlier judgment’s discussion about not conflating the political party with its legislature wing arose in the context of questions such as who could appoint the whip. It did not, according to the Shinde side, mean that the Election Commission must ignore legislative strength altogether when determining which faction represents a recognised political party. The Shinde side has also invoked the Sadiq Ali case, arguing that legislative majority remains a relevant consideration in a party-symbol dispute. The case has therefore increasingly begun to look like a legal examination of the Election Commission’s decision-making process. The Thackeray faction has questioned the Commission’s jurisdiction and the basis on which it concluded that there was a party-wide split. Its challenge effectively asks whether the Commission went too far in examining the internal structure of the Shiv Sena. The Shinde faction argues that Article 324 gives the Election Commission broad powers and that, when two groups claim the same recognised party, the Commission has to examine the party constitution, organisational structure and available evidence to identify which group represents the party. The practical difficulty is obvious. The Election Commission cannot ask every Shiv Sena member whom they support. Nor can it conduct a referendum among every booth-level worker. Kaul has therefore defended the organisational-majority approach as a workable method of assessing cadre support through recognised organisational bodies and elected representatives. The Shinde camp has also brought the events after the 2019 Maharashtra Assembly election into the argument. Shiv Sena and BJP fought the election together, but the government subsequently formed under Uddhav Thackeray was with Congress and NCP. According to the Shinde side, that political realignment created discontent among sections of the Shiv Sena organisation and contributed to the eventual split. The Thackeray faction disputes the broader narrative and maintains that the legislative rebellion cannot simply be converted into proof that the political party itself changed hands. It has also challenged the Maharashtra Speaker’s decision not to disqualify MLAs from either faction. The Supreme Court has examined questions about what could follow if that decision were set aside, including whether consequential disqualification could arise under the Tenth Schedule. Party recognition and legislative disqualification arise under different legal frameworks. The Shinde side has argued that earlier cases concerning disqualification cannot simply be transplanted into the Election Commission’s determination under the Symbols Order. The real question is no longer simply who has more MLAs. It is whether those MLAs, the party organisation, the constitution and the cadre can legally be treated as parts of the same answer. (The writer is a political observer. Views personal.)

What Keeps Long-Term Marriages Alive

Asha Tripathi

May 18

3 min read

Strong marriages are not perfect; they are continuously nurtured.

Marriage often begins with excitement, attraction, deep conversations, and effort. In the early years, even small moments — a smile, a phone call, or a walk together — feel special.

But as years pass, many marriages lose that warmth. Responsibilities grow, conversations shorten, and romance becomes routine. This does not always mean love has disappeared. Often, the relationship has stopped being nurtured.

Marriages rarely fade overnight. They weaken gradually through stress, silence, routine, ego, emotional distance, and lack of effort. Yet relationships can remain meaningful for decades when both people continue investing emotionally in each other.

Why Marriages Fade

Routine Replaces Romance: As life becomes busier with work, children, finances, and responsibilities, many couples slowly shift from lovers to managers of life. Conversations revolve around bills and schedules as emotional connection fades. Over time, couples can begin to feel like strangers living under the same roof.

Communication Weakens: Poor communication is one of the biggest reasons marriages fade. Conversations become functional rather than emotional, focused on responsibilities instead of feelings. Hurt and emotional needs remain unspoken, creating emotional distance and loneliness.

Taking Each Other for Granted: In the early stages of love, people appreciate small efforts and gestures. But over time, appreciation fades, and acts of care begin to feel like duties. When people stop feeling valued, emotional connection weakens.

Stress and Financial Pressure: Long working hours, financial burdens, parenting responsibilities, and social pressures can leave people emotionally drained. Stress can make people irritable, emotionally unavailable, and detached. Couples can slowly become each other’s outlet for frustration rather than comfort.

Ego and Unresolved Conflicts: Small unresolved issues can slowly grow into emotional walls. Some couples stop apologising, while others keep score over sacrifices and misunderstandings. When proving a point becomes more important than protecting the relationship, emotional intimacy suffers.

Lack of Emotional Intimacy: Physical presence alone is not enough for a healthy marriage. Strong relationships need emotional safety, affection, and honest communication. Without emotional intimacy, romance weakens, trust declines, and loneliness grows.

Unrealistic Expectations: Movies and social media often create unrealistic ideas about marriage, leading people to expect constant romance and perfect understanding. But real marriages involve imperfections, disagreements, and difficult phases. Strong marriages are not perfect — they are resilient.

Keeping Marriage Alive

Never Stop Dating Each Other: One of the biggest mistakes couples make is believing romance belongs only to the early years. Marriage needs continuous effort and emotional connection. Simple moments like walking together, laughing, holding hands, giving compliments, or remembering important dates help keep affection alive. Love survives through small, consistent efforts rather than grand gestures.

Communicate Deeply and Honestly: Healthy communication is essential for a strong relationship. Couples should talk not only about responsibilities, but also about feelings, fears, stress, dreams, and disappointments. Listening often matters more than offering solutions.

Appreciate Each Other Daily: Gratitude strengthens emotional bonds. Simple words like “thank you” or “I appreciate you” can make a partner feel valued and respected. Appreciation helps prevent emotional distance over time.

Keep Growing Together: Couples who continue growing together often stay emotionally connected longer. Shared experiences like travel, hobbies, fitness, reading, or personal goals can bring fresh energy into a relationship. Growth keeps relationships meaningful, while stagnation weakens connections.

Protect Physical and Emotional Intimacy: Intimacy is not only physical. It also includes affection, emotional openness, warmth, and emotional safety. Simple gestures like hugging, holding hands, or smiling can strengthen connections.

Learn to Resolve Conflicts Maturely: Arguments are normal, but disrespect should never become normal. Healthy couples focus on solving problems rather than attacking each other. Understanding each other often matters more than proving who is right.

Give Space Without Growing Distant: Healthy marriages require a balance between togetherness and individuality. Each person still needs personal growth, friendships, rest, and mental space.

(The writer is a tutor based in Thane.)

Battle for the Bow and Arrow

What Keeps Long-Term Marriages Alive

Recent Posts

Comments