Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Election Symbols Order — Upholds Authority of Election Commission.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, issued by the Election Commission of India. The petitioner contended that the Symbols Order was legislative in nature and thus beyond the Commission's authority, arguing that Article 324 of the Constitution did not empower the Commission to issue such an order. The court examined the relevant constitutional provisions, including Articles 324, 327, and 328, and the Representation of People Act, 1951, particularly Section 169, which allows the Central Government to make rules for conducting elections. The court noted that the Election Commission's powers under Article 324 included the authority to issue the Symbols Order, which was necessary for the specification and allotment of symbols to candidates, thereby facilitating the electoral process. The court also recognized that the existence of political parties was implicitly acknowledged in the democratic framework of the Constitution, especially following the 52nd Amendment, which explicitly recognized political parties. The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Symbols Order was valid and within the Commission's powers, and that any alleged malpractices among political parties were not attributable to the Symbols Order itself. The court concluded that the Symbols Order was essential for ensuring fair elections and that the Commission had the necessary authority to regulate the allotment of symbols.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Authority of Election Commission - Power to Issue Symbols Order - Article 324 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The Election Commission is empowered to issue the Symbols Order under Article 324, which encompasses the superintendence, direction, and control of elections, thus validating the Symbols Order's issuance. Held that the Commission's authority is not legislative but derived from constitutional powers (Paras 11-12).

B) Election Law - Recognition of Political Parties - Legislative Framework - Representation of People Act, 1951, Section 169 - The Symbols Order provides for the recognition and registration of political parties, which is now constitutionally acknowledged post the 52nd Amendment. The court held that the Symbols Order aligns with the constitutional framework and does not contravene the legislative provisions (Paras 11-12).

C) Election Symbols - Allotment and Regulation - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rules 5 and 10 - The Election Commission's power to specify and allot symbols is supported by the Conduct of Election Rules, ensuring a fair electoral process. The court affirmed that the Commission's powers are comprehensive and necessary for the orderly conduct of elections (Paras 11-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Election Commission had the authority to issue the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and upheld the authority of the Election Commission to issue the Order under Article 324 of the Constitution.

Law Points

  • Constitutional authority
  • Election Commission powers
  • legislative character
  • political party recognition
  • election symbols regulation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1985 LawText (SC) (09) 7

Writ Petition No. 11738 of 1985

1985-09-24

VENKATARAMIAH, E.S., MISRA, R.B.

1986 AIR 111, 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 1, 1985 SCC (4) 628, 1985 SCALE (2) 1370

Gobind Mukhoty, R.P. Gupta, Miss Kirti Gupta

KANHIYALAL OMAR

R.K. TRIVEDI & ORS.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols Order.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to strike down the Election Symbols Order.

Filing Reason

Petitioner argued that the Election Commission lacked authority to issue the Symbols Order.

Issues

Whether the Election Commission had the authority to issue the Election Symbols Order. Whether the Symbols Order is legislative in character.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner contended that the Symbols Order was legislative and beyond the Commission's authority. Respondent argued that the Commission's powers under Article 324 included issuing the Symbols Order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Election Commission possesses the authority under Article 324 of the Constitution to issue the Election Symbols Order, which is necessary for the conduct of free and fair elections, and the recognition of political parties is now constitutionally acknowledged.

Judgment Excerpts

The Election Commission is empowered to issue the Symbols Order under Article 324. The Symbols Order provides for the recognition and registration of political parties.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the Election Symbols Order, leading to the Supreme Court's examination of the constitutional validity of the Order.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 324, 327, 328
  • Representation of People Act: Section 169
  • Conduct of Election Rules: Rules 5, 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Municipal Corporation's Revision Against Rejection of Plaint Rejection Application in Lease Dispute. Suit for declaration of tenancy and injunction is not barred by Section 81-B of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act as...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Suit for Declaration and Injunction Dismissed as Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession Over Suit Pro...