Kerala High Court: In the present case, the political parties (‘petitioners’) registered under Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘the 1951 Act’), are aggrieved by the order No.F.No.56/Delisting/2025/PPS-III issued by the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’), whereby they are removed from the list of Registered Political Parties and are marked as “DELISTED RUPPs” in the register of Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (‘RUPP’) maintained by the ECI.
A Single Judge Bench of V.G. Arun, J., after referring to Section 29-A, which relates to the procedure for registration of an association of individuals as a political party, stated that Section 29-A does not contain any provision for cancellation of registration. Further, after noting that the petitioners want to field their candidates in the election to the local bodies of the State, the Court put an interim stay on the operation of Order No.F.No.56/Delisting/2025/PPS-III to the extent the petitioners are taken off from the list of Registered Political Parties and marked as “DELISTED RUPPs”.
Background
The petitioners stated that a political party’s failure to contest election in the Lok Sabha or Assembly elections for a consecutive period of six years is not a ground to de-list that party and neither Section 29-A nor any other provision in the 1951 Act, empowered the Election Commission to de-list/deregister a political party. It was also stated that the petitioners’ members had contested in the last election to the local bodies, indicating that the petitioners are active within the State. Further, the Guidelines for Registration of the Political Parties issued by the Election Commission under Section 29-A(6) had no statutory force and could not be made the basis for de-listing of registered political parties.
It was contended that the show cause notice was issued and enquiry was conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer, Government of Kerala, and based on that enquiry, the impugned order was passed by the ECI. Therefore, the fundamental principle that the authority who heard the parties should itself pass the order, is violated. It was stated that even though they have filed an appeal against the said order, it is a futile exercise as the ECI is sitting in appeal over its own decision.
On the contrary, the ECI contended that the petitioners being RUPPs are conferred with certain benefits and privileges, which could not be continued unless they are active in politics. Further, the ECI is empowered to take decisions and pass orders to bring transparency to the process of election and ensure smooth conduct of elections to the Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court, after referring to Section 29-A, which relates to the procedure for registration of an association of individuals as a political party, stated that Section 29-A does not contain any provision for cancellation of registration. The Court relied on Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare, (2002) 5 SCC 685, wherein the absence of such provision was considered by the Supreme Court.
The Court stated that ECI’s reliance on the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (‘the Symbols Order’), to trace its power for cancellation of registration was prima facie unsustainable, as the objective of the Symbols Order is to provide for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols at elections in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies, for the recognition of the political parties.
The Court also stated that the petitioners’ contention that the impugned order was passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing, and the order is passed by an authority, other than the one which had conducted the enquiry, required consideration.
The Court noted that the petitioners want to field their candidates in the election to the local bodies of the State that is already announced, and the ECI has no objection to the petitioners contesting the said election.
The Court thus held that there would be an interim stay of operation of Order No.F.No.56/Delisting/2025/PPS-III to the extent the petitioners are taken off from the list of Registered Political Parties and marked as ‘DELISTED RUPPs’, to enable the petitioners’ candidates to contest in the ongoing local bodies election, in the symbols allotted to the parties by the State Election Commission, if those symbols are not already allotted to other parties.
The matter would next be listed on 5-1-2026.
[Kerala Congress (Skariah Thomas) v. Election Commission of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12667, decided on 20-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: E.K. Nandakumar, Senior Advocate; M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Jai Mohan and Pooja Menon, Advocates
For the Respondents: M. Ajay, Standing Counsel