Supreme Court of India refused to interfere with Delhi High Court ruling upholding EC’s power to classify parties. Decision affirms validity of Election Symbols Order 1968 governing national and state party recognition.
The Supreme Court of India declined to intervene in a ruling by the Delhi High Court that had affirmed the Election Commission of India’s power to recognize political parties as either “national” or “state-level” entities. The verdict also effectively upholds the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which lays down the framework for allotting election symbols to political parties across the country.
At the heart of the dispute was the challenge to the constitutional and legal validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The petitioner contended that the Election Commission (EC) did not have statutory authority to place political parties into a structured hierarchy such as “national” and “state” parties. The plea further alleged that this classification system results in an unconstitutional and discriminatory tilt in favor of established parties, disadvantaging “newly formed” political entities during elections.
The petition came before the Supreme Court after a judgment dated January 9 from the Delhi High Court. In that earlier decision, the High Court rejected the original challenge, holding that the issues raised were not new and had already been addressed by earlier Supreme Court judgments.
The petitioner then approached the apex court to contest the High Court’s refusal to set aside the classification mechanism. The petitioner’s principal argument was that the EC’s recognition of parties as national or state-level entities was “illegal” because it lacked a specific enabling power in law.
A key part of the argument focused on campaign time and whether it is handled “unfairly.” The petitioner claimed that: established parties both national and state receive reserved symbols well before the election, enabling them to campaign for a longer period; whereas candidates from newly formed parties receive their symbols only after the date of scrutiny.
Also Read: Election Commission of India Invites MP Mahua Moitra After Supreme Court Order
According to the petitioner, this delays the ability of new entrants to introduce their symbol to voters, giving rise to an uneven playing field by providing only a “very short span of time” to build familiarity with their symbol.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the petition against the Delhi High Court’s decision. In its January 9 judgment against which the Supreme Court has now refused to entertain the challenge the Delhi High Court had remarked that the petitioner was essentially “re-agitating” questions that had already been settled by the Supreme Court.
The High Court concluded that there was no basis to hold that the Symbols Order was either “without any statutory powers” or discriminatory.
Importantly, the Delhi High Court had also observed that earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence established that the “allotment of election symbols could not be claimed as a fundamental right.” By refusing to entertain the petition, the Supreme Court has maintained the existing regulatory framework governing symbol allotment under the EC’s authority.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE