Delhi High Court: Petitioner filed the present petition seeking to set aside the impugned letter dated 27-03-2024 issued by Election Commission of India (‘ECI’)-respondent and to allot the “POT” symbol to petitioner to contest 2024 general elections, Sachin Datta, J.*, opined that petitioner had admittedly availed the aforesaid concession in 2016 for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry State Legislative Assembly Elections and then again for the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections. Since, petitioner had clearly availed the concession on previous two occasions, therefore, for availing the concession for another occasion, it must comply with the requirement of Explanation (ii) of para 10B (B) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (‘Election Symbols Order’). However, the Court opined that petitioner did not seriously dispute that it did not fulfil the said requirement. The Court also agreed with respondent’s contention that since the election process for the upcoming election for the year 2024 had already been set in motion, it was too late in the day to interfere with the same. The Court opined that petitioner’s remedy was under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and accordingly dismissed the present petition.
Background
In the present case, prior to passing of the order dated 27-03-2024, respondent vide its letter dated 21-03-2024, rejected petitioner’s request for allotment of a common symbol. Subsequently, this letter was assailed in a writ petition, which was disposed of vide order dated 27-03-2024. Thereafter, the impugned letter dated 27-03-2024 was issued by respondent, whereby it rejected petitioner’s application seeking “POT” as a common symbol under para 10B of the Election Symbols Order.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that Explanation (i) of paragraph 10B (B) of the Election Symbols Order expressly clarified that the concession of allotment of common symbol to the candidates of a registered unrecognised party was available to a political party at any two General Elections to the House of People; or any two General Elections to a State Legislative Assembly; or any one General Elections to the House of People and the other at a General Election to State Legislative Elections as the party might choose.
The Court opined that petitioner had admittedly availed the aforesaid concession in 2016 for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry State Legislative Assembly Elections and then again for the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections. Since, petitioner had clearly availed the concession on previous two occasions, therefore, for availing the concession for another occasion, it must comply with the requirement of Explanation (ii) of para 10B (B) of the Election Symbols Order. However, the Court opined that petitioner did not seriously dispute that it did not fulfil the said requirement.
Further, regarding petitioner’s contention that concession could be availed on every occasion when petitioner decided to put up candidates in States where it had not yet contested, the Court opined that this interpretation was inconsistent with para 10B of Election Symbols Order, which granted concession for the election to the “House of People”. It did not create any State wise dispensation for election to the “House of People”.
The Court opined that it was true that for seeking fulfilment of conditions in explanation (ii), the performance of the party concerned was seen in the State where it had set up a candidate. However, it did not imply that it was open for any party such as petitioner to avail the concession multiple times on repeated occasions, even though it had been unable to comply with the requirements. The Court further opined that while dealing with the request made by petitioner seeking concession of common symbol for contesting 2021 elections to the State Legislature of Tamil Nadu, respondent had rejected petitioner’s application on the ground that a political party could avail the facility of allotment of common symbol on a maximum of two occasions. The Court opined that the same reasoning would also squarely apply to petitioner’s identical request for upcoming 2024 General Elections.
The Court agreed with respondent’s contention that petition had himself stated that it intended to set only one candidate in 2024 Lok Sabha elections for Kerala and therefore, the requirement of condition mentioned in sub-clause (i) of paragraph 10B (B) of Election Symbols Order had not been fulfilled. Further, it was incumbent upon petitioner to specify the serial numbers and names of the constituencies where the party was setting up candidates, which petitioner had failed to do so. The petitioner had simply mentioned the numerical number of constituencies it intended to contest without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Symbol Order.
The Court also agreed with respondent’s contention that since the election process for the upcoming election for the year 2024 had already been set in motion, it was too late in the day to interfere with the same. The Court opined that petitioner’s remedy was under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and accordingly dismissed the present petition.
[Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi v. Election Commission of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2454, decided on 01-04-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sachin Datta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate, Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate along with Rishi Agrawala, Devika Mohan, Ankit Banati, Parminder Singh, Prabhav Bahuguna, Abhay Agnihotri and Harsh Mittal, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Ankit Agarwal, SC along with Ashish Shukla and Atul Raj, Advocates
