Delhi HC rejects plea against rule to reserve symbols for recognised pol parties
The Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order 1968 provides for reservation and allotment of election symbols to political parties in parliamentary and assembly polls
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Friday rejected a petition that challenged the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order 1968 on the ground that it discriminates between registered and unregistered political parties.
The order provides for reservation and allotment of election symbols to political parties in parliamentary and assembly polls.
The Janata Party, which petitioned the high court against the 1968 order, had argued that the ECI order was discriminatory and arbitrary since it reserved symbols for recognised political parties but not for unrecognised parties.
A bench of acting chief justice Vibhu Bakhru and justice Tushar Rao Gedela, however, dismissed the plea, observing that the issue had already been decided by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2008).
In this case, the apex court dealt with Janata Party’s petition challenging clause 10 A of the Order that only permitted a party to retain its symbol for six years after losing its status as a recognised political party and held that in its September 2008 verdict that symbols cannot be considered as a party’s exclusive property.
“We find merit in the contention (of the Election Commission of India) that the issue is no longer res integra & has been concluded by authoritative decision of the SC in Subramanian Swamy v Election Commission of India. In view of the above, the petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of the order is also rejected,” the high court said in its order.
The Janata Party, having a symbol of plough on a farmer’s shoulder (Chakra Haldar), had come to power at the Centre in 1977, with Morarji Desai as the Prime Minister of India. It was earlier recognised as a national party, however, it was declared as an unrecognised political party in 2000 by the Election Commission of India (ECI), after it failed to secure a minimum percentage of votes in the 1996 general elections.
The party argued that the 1998 Order was discriminatory and arbitrary as it reserved symbols of recognised political parties but didn’t let unrecognised parties use their old symbols. This classification, the party’s plea said, was unreasonable and unnatural. It claimed that symbols were intrinsic property of a political party and the same could not be snatched from a party due to its performance in polls and failure to secure 6% of the valid votes in the elections. “That the identity and soul of any political party is the name of the political party and its symbol. Symbols cannot be denied to any registered political party,” the petition said.
The Election Commission of India, represented by advocate Siddhant Kumar, opposed the maintainability of the petition, and underlined that the top court had already decided the issue in the 2008 case.