The Supreme Court on Thursday has cast doubt on the methodology employed by the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker in determining the genuine faction within the Shiv Sena party. The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, heard the challenge brought forth by Uddhav Thackeray's faction against the Speaker's decision not to disqualify members of Chief Minister Eknath Shinde's group.

The central issue revolves around the Speaker's reliance on the test of legislative majority as the sole criterion for establishing the bona fide Shiv Sena. The bench, led by Chief Justice Chandrachud, questioned whether this approach contradicted the court's earlier judgment in May 2023. 

The court had previously asserted that determining the majority in the legislature alone might be insufficient in cases like the present one. It emphasized the importance of considering alternative tests, such as evaluating the majority in the organizational wings of the political party, analyzing party constitution provisions, or employing other appropriate measures.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court called for a response from the Eknath Shinde-led faction to the petition filed by Uddhav Thackeray's faction, setting a deadline of April 1. The court scheduled a final hearing for the week commencing April 8, clarifying that the aspect of maintainability would be addressed first.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Uddhav Thackeray's faction, urged an expedited resolution of the matter, citing the upcoming Assembly polls in October-November 2024. 

In response, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing the Eknath Shinde-led faction, alleged that Uddhav Thackeray's faction had submitted fake, fabricated, and forged documents before the Speaker. To address this claim, the bench summoned all original documents related to the disqualification case from the Speaker's chamber.

On January 10, the Speaker had determined that Eknath Shinde's faction constituted the genuine Shiv Sena and declined to disqualify any members from either faction.

The hearing also witnessed objections from Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, questioning the direct approach of Uddhav Thackeray's faction to the Supreme Court. In response, Sibal argued that redirecting the matter to the Bombay High Court might lead to unnecessary delays in the case.