Uddhav Thackeray vs Eknath Shinde : Live Updates From Supreme Court In Shiv Sena Case Hearing [March 16]

CJI DY Chandrachud: Our compliments to everyone, the juniors too.

Hearing concludes.

Kamat: The crow is also black, the cuckoo is also black. Who is the Shivsena here? At time of judgement, it'll be clear who is the real shivsena.

Kamat: Time and again, my learned friends have said that we've never claimed a split. Kindly see their submissions before the ECI. ECI says it's evidenced that there is a split in Shivsena. Their written submissions say there is a split.

Kamat: Out of 220 Partinidhi Sabha, 160+ have supported me.

Kamat: Having a legislative majority ipso facto or ipso jure is not indicative of having majority. ECI has said we have to see organisational majority.

Kamat: Only political party can issue a whip. Rule 3(1) doesn't deal with the whip. That's the convention.

Sr Adv Devadatt Kamat: The term political party is not an indeterminate concept. There may be factions claiming they're political party. But in 21st June, there was only one political party, headed by us.

Singhvi: The consequence of an illegal origin cannot validate an illegal origin.

CJI DY Chandrachud: So you're saying that Article 189 recognises a de facto doctrine. What it does is to legitimise the acts of an authority whose original appointment is found to be invalid. But that doesn't validate the original appointment

Singhvi: The CM's participation or lack thereof will not dilute the illegality. If it's illegal, it's illegal. How does my non participation validate the act of governor- this is the core question.