The ‘Envelope’ symbol had been the Indian Secular Front’s; now the Election Commission has allotted it to a Trinamool faction for the by-polls, in a seat the ISF is also contesting. The Calcutta High Court asked the ECI why, out of many available symbols, it picked that one, remarking that the poll body is expected to be impartial and should have kept the symbol reserved rather than force parties to court.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its decision to allot the ‘Envelope’ election symbol, earlier used by the Indian Secular Front (ISF), to the Ritabrata Banerjee-led faction of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) for the upcoming by-elections [Indian Secular Front v. Election Commission of India].
The matter was heard on the ISF’s plea challenging the allotment.
The ISF’s grievance
Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, appearing for the ISF, submitted that allotting the symbol to another party was creating confusion among voters, particularly as the ISF was itself contesting the election. “How can they allot my symbol to them in an election I am also contesting? This action of ECI is spoiling the EC machinery and it’s losing credibility,” he submitted, adding that voters were confused that a symbol the ISF had used in an earlier election had, by July, been given to another party.
As a way out, Bhattacharya suggested that the ECI freeze the ‘Envelope’ symbol for all parties and allot a different symbol to the contesting parties. When the ECI submitted that the choice of symbol had been made by the petitioners, he disputed that, stating that the ECI had allotted the symbol and that his party had not chosen it.
The Court’s questions to the ECI
The ECI told the Court that the ISF had been given the symbol in 2021 and had contested elections in 2024 and 2026, and that the symbol had since been shown as a free symbol. The Court, however, questioned the Commission’s choice, asking why, when a large number of symbols were available, it had picked the one previously associated with the ISF for another party in a by-election.
“Why are your authorities doing like this? Why entering into these disputing things?… 183 symbols are there, why did you choose the envelope?” the Court asked. It observed that the ECI’s approach was “only pinching the people to create legal proceedings”, and that, once the election process had begun, such decisions were creating difficulties and compelling political parties to approach the Court. “Once the election started you are creating all the trouble and the parties are coming to court, putting burden on the court,” the Court remarked.
Framing the core of the ISF’s grievance, the Court observed that where a symbol had already been used by one party, the ECI should have considered keeping it reserved rather than allotting it to another contestant in a by-election. “His case is that when one symbol is used by one party, and this is the by-election, why did you choose only that symbol for a particular person? You should have kept it reserved,” the Court said.
Why it matters
The dispute turns on how the Election Commission manages symbols during an election in which a party’s identity is contested. The ‘Envelope’ symbol had been associated with the ISF; its allotment to a Trinamool faction, in a by-election the ISF is also contesting, is what the ISF says confuses voters and undermines confidence in the process. The Court’s questions, why that particular symbol was chosen from among many, and why it was not kept reserved, go to the ECI’s obligation to administer the symbols regime in a manner that is, and is seen to be, even-handed.
The controversy is one strand of a larger tangle over the Trinamool Congress’s name and symbol following a split into rival factions, a tangle that is being contested on several fronts, including before the Supreme Court, where the Commission has been urged to decide the underlying dispute expeditiously. The symbol a faction fights under, and the treatment of symbols previously used by other parties, can materially affect voter recognition, which is why such allotment decisions, made after the poll schedule is announced, tend to draw immediate legal challenge.
Nothing has been finally decided. The Court’s remarks are oral observations expressing concern over the ECI’s choice and putting questions to it; no order setting aside the allotment has been reported. The ISF’s suggestion that the symbol be frozen for all parties and a fresh symbol allotted remains a proposal before the Court, and the ECI is yet to respond fully; the matter will proceed on that basis. The observations are significant, however, as a judicial signal that the Commission is expected to exercise its symbol-allotment powers with care, and impartiality, when an election is already under way.
Case Title: Indian Secular Front v. Election Commission of India
Court: High Court at Calcutta
Appearances: Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya for the ISF; counsel for the Election Commission of India.
Status: Oral observations questioning the allotment of the ‘Envelope’ symbol to a Trinamool faction; no final order setting aside the allotment reported. Matter pending.