
New Delhi: The Uddhav Thackeray-led faction on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court for an urgent hearing on its plea over the contentious Shiv Sena symbol in wake of the upcoming local body elections in Maharashtra.
The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran which agreed to list it on July 14.
The counsel for the Shiv Sena (UBT) informed the bench that local body polls were likely to be notified soon in the state.
The counsel appearing for the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena faction said a similar request was made on May 7 before a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, also hearing the symbol row matter, and it was rejected.
The Shiv Sena (UBT) counsel argued that Justice Kant-led bench had said the matter could be mentioned during the top court’s partial court working days.
He argued the matter raised the “question of peoples’ choice”.
He said the plea seeks an interim arrangement similar to the one directed by the apex court in the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) symbol row case.
In November last year, the top court directed the Ajit Pawar-led NCP faction to publish a disclaimer in newspapers, including Marathi ones, that the issue of allocation of “clock” symbol was pending in court.
The order was passed when the top court was hearing the pleas of Sharad Pawar and Ajit Pawar factions over the purported use and misuse of “clock” symbol.
The top court on May 6 paved the way for the state’s local body polls which were stalled for over five years due to a reservation issue and ordered the Maharashtra election panel to notify it in four weeks.
On May 7, the apex court asked the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction to concentrate on local body polls after the party sought an urgent hearing on its plea against the Maharashtra assembly speaker’s decision to give the ‘bow and arrow’ symbol to the Eknath Shinde-led faction.
The counsel appearing for Shiv Sena (UBT) had then said the assembly speaker gave the ‘bow and arrow’ symbol to the Eknath Shinde faction in 2023 based on the legislative majority, which was contrary to the Constitution bench verdict of the top court.