The Delhi High Court dismissed the Rashtriya Bahujan Congress’s request for permanent reservation of its election symbol, a sewing machine, emphasizing that only recognized political parties can reserve symbols according to the Election Symbol Order, 1968. This decision reaffirms the distinction between recognized and unrecognized parties in India’s electoral framework.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday (Jan 24th) dismissed a plea by the Rashtriya Bahujan Congress (RBC) seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to permanently reserve its election symbol—a sewing machine. The court emphasized that such reservations are exclusively for recognised political parties, as outlined under the Election Symbol (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela clarified:
“You cannot ask for reservation on that (election symbol). Reserved symbols are only given to recognised political parties. You’re asking for the reservation of a symbol, we can’t do that.”
The court’s decision aligned with Clause 5 of the Election Symbol Order, which explicitly states that symbols are reserved for recognised political parties for exclusive allotment to their candidates during elections.
Read Also: Lok Sabha Elections 2024 | SC Dismisses Appeal on Rejection of Nomination Papers
The RBC, an unrecognised political party, argued that it had been contesting elections on the sewing machine symbol for over 20 years across multiple states. The party claimed the ECI had failed to respond to its request to permanently allot the symbol and accused the commission of having mala fide intentions to assign the symbol to another party.
This plea was a challenge to an earlier single-judge order from October 1, 2024, where Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed the petition, citing no legal basis as the party lacked recognised status.
The court’s decision echoed a ruling from January 17, 2025, where another bench rejected a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Election Symbol Order, 1968. The petition, filed by the Janata Party, alleged discrimination between recognised and unrecognised political parties in reserving election symbols.
In that case, the bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, relied on the 2008 Supreme Court judgment in Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India. The apex court had ruled that symbols cannot be considered as a political party’s exclusive property. It upheld the provision allowing a party to retain its symbol for up to six years after losing its recognised status but stressed that reserved symbols are exclusively for recognised parties.
The Election Commission of India was represented by Advocate Suruchi Suri, while RBC’s counsel argued for permanent reservation of the symbol.
This ruling reinforces the distinction between recognised and unrecognised political parties under Indian electoral law. The ECI’s discretion in allotting symbols and its adherence to the Election Symbol Order, 1968 ensures a uniform and transparent process, preventing symbols from being monopolized by unrecognised entities.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE