Shiv Sena faction led by Uddhav Thackeray writes to poll panel on party symbol, name
In a letter, Thackeray’s lawyer said that several communications and actions of ECI have given a rise to a “serious apprehension of bias in the mind of the respondent”
MUMBAI: Shiv Sena faction led by Uddhav Thackeray on Thursday wrote to the Election Commission raising objections to its recent decisions concerning the two factions ahead of next month's bypoll in East Andheri seat.
In a letter, Thackeray's lawyer said that several communications and actions of ECI have given a rise to a "serious apprehension of bias in the mind of the respondent" (Uddhav Thackeray faction). Eknath Shinde had taken oath as Chief Minister earlier this year following a split in Shiv Sena. The two groups are contesting over "bow and arrow" symbol of Shiv Sena which has been frozen by the Election Commission ahead of the East Andheri and has given them new names and new symbols.
The poll panel on Tuesday alloted the 'two swords and shield symbol' to the Eknath Shinde faction of Shiv Sena and allotted 'Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena' (Balasaheb's Shiv Sena) as its name ahead of the bypoll. The faction led by Uddhav Thackeray was allotted 'flaming torch' (mashaal) election symbol and name of 'ShivSena - Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray'
The poll panel had earlier barred the rival groups from using the symbol "bow and arrow". The letter by the Uddhav Thackeray faction raised objection against recent decisions in the matter of allotment of interim election symbol and name to the party. "The respondent's apprehension was confirmed when he came to know that the petitioner had also very tellingly given the same first choice of name, and the same first and second choice of symbol as the respondent, thus, effectively precluding the respondent from being allotted his first choice of name and the first and second choice of symbol. "This could not have happened but for the fact that the Commission shared a privileged communication from the respondent on its public website. This one sided and unfair disclosure gave the petitioner information that he immediately used to his advantage by ensuring that his preferences regarding name and symbol blocked the respondent from being allotted his first preference," the letter said. (ANI)