Date of the Judgment: 7 February 2019
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a political faction that is currently in dispute over the legitimate use of a party’s name and symbol be granted an interim common symbol for elections? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to reconsider its stance on allotting a common symbol to the faction led by T.T.V. Dhinakaran (TTVD). This decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring a level playing field for all parties involved in electoral processes, especially when disputes are still under judicial review.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a claim by TTVD and V.K. Sasikala (VKS) that their group was the legitimate faction of the AIADMK and thus entitled to use the party’s name and symbol (“Two Leaves”). The ECI, however, recognized the group led by E. Madhusudhanan (EM) and Edapaddi K. Palaniswami (EKP) as the official AIADMK. TTVD then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, challenging the ECI’s decision.
During the pendency of the writ petition, with elections announced in Tamil Nadu, TTVD sought an interim order from the High Court to use a common name and the symbol “Pressure Cooker.” The High Court allowed this request, directing the ECI to allocate a common symbol and name to TTVD’s group. Aggrieved by this decision, EKP appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court initially kept the High Court’s interim order in abeyance, directing the High Court to expedite the hearing of the writ petition. However, with new election notifications, TTVD filed a miscellaneous application in the Supreme Court seeking similar interim relief.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 23 November 2017 | Election Commission of India (ECI) accepted the claim of E. Madhusudhanan (EM) and Edapaddi K. Palaniswami (EKP) group to use the AIADMK name and symbol. |
| 9 March 2018 | Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi allowed TTVD’s application to use a common name and the symbol “Pressure Cooker”. |
| 28 March 2018 | Supreme Court kept the High Court’s interim order in abeyance and directed the High Court to expedite the hearing of the writ petition. |
| 31 December 2018 | ECI notified bye-election to fill the vacant Assembly Constituency of 168-Thiruvarur. |
| 2 January 2019 | TTVD filed a Miscellaneous Application in the Supreme Court seeking interim relief due to the new election notification. |
| 6 January 2019 | ECI rescinded the notification for the bye-election. |
| 7 February 2019 | Supreme Court directed the ECI to reconsider its stance and allow TTVD to use a common symbol. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court’s Single Judge allowed TTVD’s application for interim relief, directing the ECI to permit TTVD’s group to use a common symbol, preferably “Pressure Cooker,” and a name of their choice. This decision was challenged by EKP in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially stayed the High Court’s order, directing the High Court to expedite the main writ petition.
Subsequently, TTVD filed a miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court, citing a new election notification. The Supreme Court addressed the maintainability of this application, noting that it had granted liberty to the parties to approach the court in case of a new election notification.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, specifically whether a faction of a political party, whose claim to be the real party is pending before the High Court, can be allotted a common symbol. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly Section 29A, which deals with the registration of political parties, also plays a role in this dispute.
The Court considered Paragraph 18 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which states:
“18. Power of Commission to issue instructions and directions. The Commission, may issue instructions and directions— (a) for the clarification of any of the provisions of this Order. (b) for the removal of any difficulty which may arise in relation to the implementation of any such provisions; and (c) in relation to any matter with respect to the reservation and allotment of symbols and recognition of political parties, for which this Order makes no provision or makes insufficient provision, and provision is in the opinion of the Commission necessary for the smooth and orderly conduct of elections.”
The Court also considered Article 324 of the Constitution of India, which vests the Election Commission with the power of superintendence, direction, and control of elections.
Arguments
The petitioner (EKP) and other respondents argued that the Election Symbols Order does not allow for the allotment of a common symbol to a group that is not registered as a political party. They contended that the ECI’s decision of 23rd November 2017 was final, and thus, no interim relief should be granted. They further argued that allowing such relief would create a bad precedent and render the provisions of the Symbols Order redundant.
Respondent No. 1 (TTVD) argued that their faction was the real party and that the ECI had previously granted interim relief to ensure a level playing field. They contended that the High Court, as a court of equity, was competent to issue similar directions during the pendency of the writ petition. They also pointed out the practical difficulties in registering a new party, including the risk of disqualification for elected representatives.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| No provision in Symbols Order for allotting common symbol to unregistered group |
|
EKP and other respondents |
| Faction is the real party and deserves interim relief |
|
TTVD |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the ECI could be directed to allot a common symbol to a faction of a political party when the dispute regarding the legitimacy of the faction was still pending before the High Court.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether a faction can be allotted a common symbol during a pending dispute? | The Court held that if the ECI can issue interim directions for a level playing field during a dispute, the High Court can do the same when the ECI’s decision is under challenge. The Court also noted that the reported decisions cited by the petitioners dealt with cases where the political party was already registered, but not recognized. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court/Body | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Paragraph 18 | Election Commission of India | Explained the powers of the ECI to issue instructions and directions for the smooth conduct of elections. |
| Article 324 of the Constitution of India | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the plenary powers of the Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections. |
| Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam and Anr. Vs. Election Commission of India, (2011) 4 SCC 224 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished the case, noting it involved a registered but unrecognized party, unlike the current dispute. |
| Jyoti Basu and Ors. Vs. Debi Ghosal and Ors., 1982 (1) SCC 691 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that the right to an election symbol is a statutory right, not a fundamental right. |
| Shri Sadiq Ali and Anr. Vs. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Ors., (1972) 4 SCC 664 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to underscore the importance of a common symbol for a political group, especially in a country with a large illiterate population. |
| Kanhiya Lal Omar Vs. R.K. Trivedi and Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 628 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the importance of political parties in a democracy and the unifying effect of a symbol. |
| Madeva Upendra Sinai and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 765 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished the case, stating it does not apply to the present situation. |
| Kerala Congress (Anti-merger Group), File No.56/04/2010, dated 25th March, 2011 | Election Commission of India | Cited as an example where the ECI had allowed an anti-merger group to use separate names and symbols. |
| Uttarakhand Kranti Dal, No.56/17/2011/PPS-II/Vol.IV, dated 31st December, 2011 | Election Commission of India | Cited as an example where the ECI had allotted separate names and symbols to two groups of a political party. |
| Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi Vs. Election Commission of India, WP(C) No.177/2009, dated 27th April, 2009 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as an example where the Court directed the ECI to allot a symbol to a registered unrecognized party. |
| Indian National Congress, Election Law Reports, Vol. 47 (1974) | Election Commission of India | Cited as an example where the ECI recognized a splinter group as a National party and issued directions under Paragraph 18. |
| Shri N. Chandra Babu Naidu Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Parvati, dated 12th March, 1996 | Election Commission of India | Cited as an example where the ECI recognized one group as the real party and provided relief to the other group. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The Election Commission cannot allot a common symbol to an unregistered group. | The Court disagreed, stating that if the ECI can issue interim directions to ensure a level playing field, the High Court can do the same when the ECI’s decision is under challenge. |
| The ECI’s decision of 23rd November 2017 was final and no interim relief should be granted. | The Court held that since the ECI’s decision was under challenge before the High Court, the Court could grant interim relief. |
| Granting relief would create a bad precedent and render the provisions of the Symbols Order redundant. | The Court stated that the interim relief was necessary to ensure a level playing field and would not cause prejudice to any other party. |
| The TTVD faction is the real party and deserves interim relief. | The Court agreed, noting that the High Court had already considered the matter and granted interim relief. |
| Registering a new party has practical difficulties. | The Court acknowledged the practical difficulties and the risk of disqualification for elected representatives. |
The Court observed that the High Court’s interim order was not independently challenged by the ECI. The Court also noted that the writ petition was admitted by the High Court, which implies that a prima facie case was made out by the writ petitioner.
The Court stated that the ECI has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and that the High Court is also a court of equity. It emphasized that it is essential to ensure a level playing field in the political sphere, especially when the dispute regarding the real party is still not settled.
The Court concluded that it was appropriate to continue the interim arrangement as directed by the ECI in its order dated 22nd March, 2017, regarding the allotment of a common symbol to the political group represented by TTVD.
The Court also noted that the efficacy of having a common symbol for a political group has been underscored in Shri Sadiq Ali and Anr. Vs. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Ors. [CITATION].
The Court vacated its earlier order dated 28th March, 2018, which had kept the High Court’s interim order in abeyance.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure a level playing field for all political factions, especially when a dispute is still under judicial review. The Court emphasized that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has the power to issue interim directions to ensure free and fair elections, and the High Court has similar powers when the ECI’s decision is under challenge.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for a Level Playing Field | 30% |
| Interim Relief | 25% |
| Plenary Powers of ECI | 20% |
| High Court’s Role as Court of Equity | 15% |
| Importance of a Common Symbol | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court also considered the practical difficulties in registering a new political party and the potential for elected representatives to face disqualification. The Court balanced the need to uphold the statutory scheme of the Election Symbols Order with the need to ensure fairness and equity.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
Dispute over AIADMK symbol
ECI recognizes EKP faction
TTVD challenges ECI decision in High Court
High Court grants interim relief to TTVD
Supreme Court initially stays High Court order
TTVD seeks interim relief from Supreme Court
Supreme Court directs ECI to reconsider
The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, stating that the interim arrangement was necessary to ensure a level playing field. The Court emphasized that the ECI has the power to issue interim directions to ensure free and fair elections and that the High Court has similar powers when the ECI’s decision is under challenge.
The Court’s decision was based on the principle that when a dispute is sub judice, an interim arrangement should be made to ensure that neither party is prejudiced.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“Notably, this Court has neither adverted to the merits of the impugned interim order of the Single Judge of the High Court nor has it set aside or upheld the same.”
“The fact that the writ petition is still pending before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court would certainly be no impediment for the parties to approach this Court in light of the liberty granted to them in terms of our order dated 28th March, 2018.”
“To buttress the argument that the ECI has wide powers to provide for an equitable arrangement for ensuring free and fair elections, reliance is placed on the interim order passed by the Election Commission dated 17th January, 2000, in the case of Janata Dal (United), permitting the two groups of the National Party to use separate names and symbols…”
The Court did not have a minority opinion.
Key Takeaways
- The Election Commission can be directed to reconsider its decision on symbol allocation when a dispute is pending before a court.
- Interim arrangements can be made to ensure a level playing field for all political factions during elections.
- The High Court, as a court of equity, has the power to issue directions to ensure fairness and justice in electoral disputes.
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a common symbol for a political group, especially in a country with a large illiterate population.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to:
- Process the application of the TTVD group in terms of the High Court’s interim order dated 9th March 2018.
- If the High Court does not dispose of the writ petition within four weeks, the ECI shall process the application within two weeks thereafter.
- If the ECI intends to issue any notification for bye-elections or parliamentary elections, it shall pass appropriate directions within one week from the date of such notification.
Development of Law
This judgment clarifies that the Election Commission’s powers are not absolute and that the High Court, as a court of equity, can intervene to ensure a level playing field during electoral disputes. The ratio decidendi of the case is that when a dispute regarding the legitimacy of a political faction is sub judice, interim arrangements can be made to ensure that neither party is prejudiced. This decision reinforces the principle that the Election Commission must act fairly and impartially, and that courts can step in to ensure that electoral processes are just and equitable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of ensuring fair electoral practices and a level playing field for all political factions. By directing the Election Commission to reconsider its stance on allocating a common symbol to TTVD’s group, the Court has emphasized the need for interim relief when disputes are still under judicial review. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding democratic principles and ensuring that all participants in the electoral process are treated equitably.