Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ., and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.*, opined that there was no bar under Articles 243-ZA or 243-R of the Constitution on the political parties from contesting municipal elections. The Court also opined that the adoption of the Symbols by Respondent 3, the State Election Commission of Delhi (‘SEC’) in the Municipal Elections was reasonable and not arbitrary.
Background
The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the direction of this Court to declare Rules 15 and 24 (Impugned Rules) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 2012 (‘2012 Rules’) as ultra vires the Constitution and consequently strike off Part-I of the Nomination Paper contained in Form No. 2 of the 2012 Rules. Petitioner also sought a direction to SEC i.e., to stop putting the reserved symbols of political parties on the list of contesting candidates. Petitioner sought a further direction to the SEC to conduct election of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) without the reserved symbols, which allegedly violated fundamental rights of petitioner enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Petitioner contested the General Election to MCD-2022 from Ward No. 150, Green Park as an independent candidate and lost the said election.
Petitioner submitted that the impugned Rules impinge upon conduct of the free and fair municipal elections and the impugned Rules violate Articles 243-ZA and 243-K of the Constitution. The impugned Rules aim to create a class of candidates which was not defined or recognized under Part IX or IX-A of the Constitution. The presence of reserved symbols of political party on the list of contesting candidates was arbitrary as the same takes away the level playing field for all the candidates, and thus was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Petitioner stated that reserved symbols were not used for the Gram Panchayat elections, which were governed by Part-IX of the Constitution as they were meant for grass-root level democracy and similarly, reserved symbols should not be used for municipal elections held under Part-IX A of the Constitution. Further, in the absence of a corresponding provision in Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (‘DMC Act’) akin to Section 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘1951 Act’), the 2012 Rules could not grant recognition to use of the name and reserved symbols of National parties as well as State parties in the elections of MCD.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the right of the political parties to participate and contest the elections was recognized by the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’), independent of Section 29-A of the 1951 Act and even prior to its incorporation in the 1951 Act. The Court further observed that the power of superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, elections of MCD were vested in the SEC under Article 243-ZA of the Constitution and this Constitutional power of the SEC was also statutorily recognized under Section 7 of the DMC Act.
The SEC exercising its power under Section 7 of the DMC Act read with Rule 15 of the 2012 Rules, had issued Municipal Corporation of Delhi Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 2022 (Symbol Order 2022) for the elections held in 2022 and granted recognition to the National and State Parties already recognised by ECI. Even in the absence of the impugned Rule 15, the power of SEC to grant recognition to political parties, like ECI could be traced to its powers under Article 243-ZA of the Constitution and Section 7 of the DMC Act.
The Court relied on Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi, (1985) 4 SCC 628, wherein the Supreme Court held that the recognition granted by SEC to the political parties to contest municipal elections was within its jurisdiction and not ultra vires. The Court opined that there was no bar under Article 243-ZA or 243-R of the Constitution on political parties from contesting municipal elections.
The Court opined that the backbone of the Indian democracy were the people itself, who go on to choose their representative by way of direct election. The Court observed that in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, (1972) 4 SCC 664, the Supreme Court while testing the constitutional vires of Para 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, deliberated upon the genesis of introduction of symbols system in the elections of India. Therefore, the Court opined that the adoption of the Symbols by the SEC in the Municipal Elections was reasonable and not arbitrary.
The Court relied on Alka Ghalot v. State (NCT of Delhi), WP(C) 1189 of 2021, wherein the issue of disruption of level playing field in MCD elections was raised and the petition was dismissed observing that it was not shown that any different process of allotment of symbols was followed in the National or the State Election, which would prove the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Court opined that the plea of violation of Article 14 of Constitution did not survive for consideration.
The Court stated that SEC in the Symbol Order 2022 had granted recognition to the National and State Parties already recognized by ECI and provided for allotment of Symbols to contesting candidates. Thus, the Court opined that the Symbol Order 2022 issued by the SEC in exercise of its powers under Article 243-ZA of the Constitution, Section 7 of the DMC Act and Rule 15 of the 2012 Rules was not ultra vires. The Court dismissed the present petition being devoid of merit.
[Lokesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2553, decided on 3-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Hargyan Singh Gahlot, Manoj Kumar Badriwal, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sameer Vashisht, ASC (Civil); Neeraj, SPC; Vedansh Anand, Government Pleader; Rudra Paliwal, Mahesh Kumar Rathore, Sanjay Pal, Aman Singh, Harshita Nathrani, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
