E-Paper
Delhi HC dismisses Hind Samrajya Party plea against Election Symbols Order
A bench of justices Nitin Sambre and Anish Dayal said that the petitioner — the Hind Samrajya Party (HSP) — was trying to re-agitate issues that had already been settled
New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutionality of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, on the grounds that it discriminates between recognised and unrecognised political parties and questions the Election Commission of India’s power to frame the order.
A bench of justices Nitin Sambre and Anish Dayal said that the petitioner — the Hind Samrajya Party (HSP) — was trying to re-agitate issues that had already been settled.
The HSP, which was registered with the ECI in October 2018, sought to strike down the provisions on the ground that all political parties registered with the ECI form a single class and that their sub-classification as national and state parties violates the fundamental right to equality.
The bench said that the Supreme Court, in several decisions including Sadiq Ali (1972), All Party Leaders Conference, Shillong (1977), and Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (2012), had already upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order after examining its object and purpose, as well as the ECI’s power to frame the Order.
In Sadiq Ali (1972) and All Party Leaders Conference, Shillong (1977), the Supreme Court held that the ECI’s power to frame the Order flows from Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests the ECI with the power to control elections.
In Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that to recognise a political party, it was necessary to achieve a certain benchmark in state politics.
“We are of the view that the petitioner is trying to re-agitate the same issues which stand settled not only by the constitutional court in the matter of Anoop Baranwal but also by the Hon’ble apex court in the judgments of Sadiq Ali as well as All Party Leaders Conference,” the court ruled.
The HSP argued that paragraphs 6A, 6B and 6C, which lay down the conditions for recognition of state and national parties and for the continued recognition of political parties as state or national, place unrecognised parties at a disadvantage during elections, as voters generally tend to favour recognised parties over newly registered ones.
The HSP also contended that paragraph 5(2) of the Order, which allows reservation of a symbol for a recognised political party even before an election is notified, places unrecognised parties at a disadvantage, as they are allotted symbols only after their nominations are accepted.
The ECI and the Centre sought dismissal of the petition on the ground that the issues raised have already been settled by various Supreme Court rulings. It was also asserted that recognition and entitlement to a reserved symbol for a recognised political party are not absolute but contingent upon compliance with electoral discipline.
