Today,The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected a petition challenging the Election Commission’s power to recognise political parties as national or state-level entities. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin W. Sambre and Anish Dayal noted the matter was already settled by Supreme Court rulings.
NEW DELHI: Today, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition questioning the Election Commission of India’s authority to recognise political parties as national or state level entities
A Division Bench comprising Justices Nitin W. Sambre and Anish Dayal held that the issue stood settled by earlier rulings of the Supreme Court.
The case was filed by the Hind Samrajya Party, a registered political party, which challenged the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, under which the Election Commission of India (ECI) classifies political parties as national or state parties.
Also Read: Election Commission of India Invites MP Mahua Moitra After Supreme Court Order
The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, as amended in 2005, prescribes certain provisions for recognition of political parties as National or State Parties.
Section 6A and 6B of the order prescribes “Conditions for recognition as a State Party or as a National Party respectively” . while Section 6C deals with the “Conditions for continued recognition as a National or State Party”.
The petition argued that the ECI had no statutory or constitutional power to confer such recognition and that the criteria prescribed under Section 6A, 6B and 6C of the Symbols Order were arbitrary, unreasonable and without any rational basis. It was contended that the distinction created between recognised and unrecognised parties resulted in systemic discrimination during elections.
It was further argued that the concept of recognising political parties as national or state-level entities was alien to the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, and the principles of democracy, equality, and free and fair elections, which form “part of the Constitution’s basic structure“.
Earlier Decisions of the Supreme Court:
In it’s Landmark judgment in the case of Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 628, the Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, including the Election Commission’s power to recognise political parties as national or state parties. The Court held that the Symbols Order is traceable to Article 324 of the Constitution and is essential to ensure “free and fair elections”.
In Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India (1972) 4 SCC 664, the Supreme Court recognised the plenary powers of the Election Commission under Article 324, affirming that the Symbols Order is a valid exercise of those powers and binding on political parties. Also in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Election Commission of India (2002) 5 SCC 294, the Court reiterated that the Election Commission has wide powers under Article 324 to regulate political parties, including matters relating to recognition and election symbols, and that such powers are necessary for maintaining electoral discipline.
A Division Bench rejected the challenge, holding that the issue was already settled by earlier Supreme Court judgments upholding the validity of the Symbols Order and the ECI’s power to grant such recognition.
The Bench observed,
“The issue is covered by the earlier judgments of the apex court. We have dismissed the petition,”
The Court accordingly dismissed the petition, stating that a detailed judgment would be released later..
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
