The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment on Friday, refused to entertain a plea by Jatin Mohanty, the General Secretary of BJP Odisha, against the alleged misuse of public funds by the Biju Janta Dal (BJD) in advertising state welfare schemes using its party symbol, the ‘Conch‘. The plea, which has significant implications for political advertising and the use of party symbols in government schemes, was directed towards a more appropriate jurisdiction.
Also read-Delhi High Court | Sex Of Child Depends On Man’s Chromosome (lawchakra.in)
Jatin Mohanty’s plea raised a critical issue regarding the intersection of political symbolism and government advertising. He contended that the Odisha government’s use of the ‘Conch’ symbol, allotted to the BJD by the Election Commission of India, in promoting its schemes in the media, was a breach of political advertising norms. Mohanty argued,
“A political party’s symbol cannot be used by the government,”
emphasizing that this practice amounted to a violation of paragraph 16-A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order and the Model Code of Conduct for Political Parties and Candidates.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora responded to the plea with clear guidance. The court remarked,
“Go there (Orissa High Court). Raise it over there. Everything happened in Orissa. Advertisements were done in Orissa. This court is overburdened. We cannot do it in this manner. Go there. They will decide. Not us.”
This statement underscored the court’s position on jurisdictional appropriateness and workload management.
The court further added,
“That is the story in each State. It is not unique to one State. It is happening in every State. They will decide it, go to Orissa High Court. Don’t come to Delhi High Court. Forum convenience is Orissa.”
This observation highlighted the widespread nature of the issue across various states.
The plea also brought to light the extensive spending on advertisements by political parties, with the BJP reportedly spending Rs. 378 crores in the last five years, according to an RTI activist. Mohanty had previously approached the Election Commission of India, seeking the cancellation of BJD’s reserved symbol for allegedly violating the model code of conduct, but no order was passed on this representation.
In his plea, Mohanty expressed concern over the motives behind the BJD’s advertising strategy, stating,
“It is submitted that from the newspaper articles circulating every day, it appears that Respondent No. 2 had other motives for advertising various State Government Welfare Scheme.”
The Delhi High Court’s decision to direct the petitioner to the Orissa High Court reflects the judicial process’s adherence to jurisdictional norms and the complexities involved in political advertising practices. This case highlights the ongoing debate over the use of political symbols in government scheme advertisements and the legal boundaries governing such practices.
