Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission’s Symbol Order: Subramanian Swamy vs. Election Commission of India (23 September 2008)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2008

Case: Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

Can a political party perpetually retain a reserved election symbol, even after losing its recognized status? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a petition filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, challenging the Election Commission’s regulations on symbol allocation. The core issue revolved around Paragraph 10A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which Dr. Swamy contended was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The bench comprised Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, with the judgment being delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.

Case Background

Dr. Subramanian Swamy, in his personal capacity as President of the Janata Party, filed a writ petition challenging Paragraph 10A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Symbols Order”). The Janata Party, once a recognized national political party with the reserved symbol of Chakra Haldar (a farmer carrying a plough within a wheel), lost its national party status due to poor performance in the 1996 General Elections. On 27 September 2000, the Election Commission of India (ECI) officially derecognized the party.

Following the derecognition, the Janata Party sought to retain its reserved symbol. The ECI amended the Symbols Order on 1 December 2000, introducing Clause 10A, which allowed unrecognized parties that were previously recognized to retain their symbol for a limited period. Dr. Swamy contested this clause, arguing for the permanent retention of the symbol.

In 2001, Dr. Swamy complained against Clause 10A, arguing that the six-year limit was insufficient. He proposed amendments to allow formerly recognized parties to retain their symbols permanently. This proposal was rejected on 14 July 2005, based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Janata Dal Samajwadi v. Election Commission [AIR 1996 SC 577]. This rejection led to the writ petition in the High Court, which was subsequently dismissed, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case is primarily based on the following:

✓ Article 324 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Election Commission of India to frame regulations for the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament and State legislatures.
✓ Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section deals with the registration of political parties with the Election Commission.
✓ Rules 5(1) and 10(4) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950: These rules provide that every candidate at an election shall be allotted a different symbol, subject to restrictions specified by the Election Commission.
✓ Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968: This order provides for the specification, reservation, choice, and allotment of symbols at elections, the recognition of political parties, and related matters.

Key provisions from the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, include:

✓ Section 2(h): Defines “political party” as an association or body of individual citizens of India registered with the Commission as a political party under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
✓ Section 5: Classifies symbols as either reserved or free. Reserved symbols are exclusively allotted to candidates set up by a recognized political party.
✓ Section 6: Classifies political parties as either recognized or unrecognized. Recognized parties are further classified as National Parties or State Parties.
✓ Section 6A: Specifies the conditions for recognition as a National Party.
✓ Section 6B: Specifies the conditions for recognition as a State Party.
✓ Section 6C: Specifies the conditions for continued recognition as a National or State Party.
✓ Section 8: Details the choice of symbols by candidates of National and State Parties and the allotment thereof.
✓ Section 10A: Provides a concession to candidates set up by an unrecognized party that was earlier recognized as a National or State party, allowing them to be allotted the symbol reserved earlier for that party under certain conditions. The clause states:

“If a political party, which is unrecognized at present but was a recognized National or State party in any State or Union Territory not earlier than six years from the date of notification of the election, sets up a candidate at an election in a constituency in any State or Union territory, whether such party was earlier recognized in that State or Union territory or not, then such candidate may, to the exclusion of all other candidates in the constituency, be allotted the symbol reserved earlier for that party when it was a recognized National or State party, notwithstanding that such symbol is not specified in the list of free symbols for such State or Union territory, on the fulfillment of each of the following conditions…”

Arguments

Arguments by Dr. Subramanian Swamy (Appellant):

✓ Arbitrariness of Clause 10A: Dr. Swamy contended that Clause 10A of the Symbols Order was arbitrary because it allowed only a six-year grace period for a derecognized party to retain its reserved symbol. He argued that this provision violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.
✓ Intellectual Property: Dr. Swamy argued that a symbol, conceived after considerable intellectual exercise, becomes an intellectual property of the party and cannot be taken away. He stated, “once a symbol always a symbol”.
✓ Undemocratic Act: Depriving a political party of its symbol is an undemocratic act, especially for parties like Janata Party, which had a long history and association with its symbol.

Arguments by Ms. Meenakshi Arora (Counsel for the Election Commission):

✓ Recognition and Symbol Intertwined: The symbol is integrally and inextricably connected with the concept of recognition of the party. Since Janata Party was derecognized, it could not insist on retaining a reserved symbol.
✓ Historical Background: The counsel provided the historical context of the Symbols Order, emphasizing that reserved symbols are exclusively for recognized political parties.
✓ Benefit of Clause 10A: The Janata Party had already benefited from Clause 10A for more than six years, and the challenge was raised only when the concession period was nearing its end.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether Clause 10A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India due to its alleged arbitrariness.
2. Whether a political party has a right to permanently retain its reserved symbol, even after losing its status as a recognized political party.
3. Whether a symbol can be considered an intellectual property of a political party.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

✓ Article 324 of the Constitution of India: Empowered the Election Commission to frame regulations for elections.
✓ Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Deals with the registration of political parties.
✓ Rules 5(1) and 10(4) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950: Pertains to the allotment of symbols to candidates.
✓ Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968: Provides for the allotment of symbols and recognition of political parties.
✓ Shri Sadiq Ali & Anr. V. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi & Ors. [(1972) 4 SCC 664] Supreme Court: Addressed the controversy regarding election symbols in split groups of the Congress Party. The Court observed that a symbol is not property to be divided between co-owners.
✓ Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras and others [(1985) 3 SCC 103] Supreme Court: Established that a statute must be read as a whole, with one part construed by another.
✓ Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. & Others [(2001) 4 SCC 139] Supreme Court: Highlighted that the court can examine materials to find the legislative intent of a statute, but only when the statute is ambiguous.
✓ Janata Dal Samajwadi v. Election Commission [AIR 1996 SC 577] Supreme Court: Election Commission relied on this judgment to reject the proposal to retain their symbols permanently.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Shri Sadiq Ali & Anr. V. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi & Ors. [(1972) 4 SCC 664]:* The Court used this case to support the view that a symbol is not property and cannot be divided.
✓ Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras and others [(1985) 3 SCC 103]:* The Court cited this case to emphasize that a statute must be read as a whole.
✓ Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. & Others [(2001) 4 SCC 139]:* The Court referred to this case to highlight that the plain meaning of a provision should be relied upon when the language is clear.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

✓ The inextricable link between the recognition of a political party and its entitlement to a reserved symbol.
✓ The reasonableness of the six-year period provided in Clause 10A for a derecognized party to retain its symbol.
✓ The principle that a symbol does not constitute property, especially intellectual property with monetary implications.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations than by the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Logical Reasoning for Issue 1: Validity of Clause 10A under Article 14

Key Takeaways

Practical Implications:

✓ Political parties losing their recognized status cannot permanently retain their reserved symbols.
✓ The Election Commission’s authority to regulate and allot symbols is upheld.
✓ Clause 10A of the Election Symbols Order provides a reasonable concession period for derecognized parties.

Potential Future Impact:

✓ This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining a performance threshold for political parties to retain reserved symbols.
✓ It clarifies that election symbols are not considered property and are subject to regulatory control by the Election Commission.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Election Commission’s power to regulate election symbols and the conditions for retaining them are constitutionally valid. There is no significant change in the previous position of the law, but the judgment reinforces the principle that the recognition of a political party is intrinsically linked to its entitlement to a reserved symbol.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, affirming the validity of Clause 10A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The Court held that the six-year concession period for derecognized parties to retain their symbols is reasonable and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also rejected the argument that an election symbol constitutes property, reinforcing the Election Commission’s regulatory authority over election symbols.