Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the election symbol 'Tree' allotted to the Socialist Party after the merger of the Praja Socialist Party (PSP) and the Samyukta Socialist Party (SSP). The appellants, Ramashankar Kaushik and another, claimed that after the unity was dissolved, a reborn SSP was entitled to the 'Tree' symbol. The Election Commission rejected this claim, holding that the group calling itself SSP was a new party and could not claim the old symbol. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The background shows a long history of splits and mergers among socialist parties. The PSP and SSP were national parties with symbols 'Hut' and 'Tree' respectively. After poor results in the 1971 Lok Sabha election, leaders of both parties met on May 25, 1971, and drafted a basis for unification. Special National Conferences of the SSP and PSP approved the merger, and a new party called the Socialist Party was formed. A National Ad-hoc Committee was constituted, which elected Karpoori Thakur as Chairman and Madhu Dandavate as General Secretary, adopted a flag, and postponed decision on symbol. George Fernandes and Prem Bhasin informed the Election Commissioner of the merger and requested the 'Tree' symbol. The Chief Election Commissioner in November 1971 recognised the Socialist Party as a national party and allotted the 'Tree' symbol. Later, the appellants' group sought to dissolve the unity and claimed that the old SSP had been reborn, requesting allotment of 'Tree' to it. The Socialist Party opposed. After considering the matter, the Chief Election Commissioner held that the new SSP was not the old SSP and could not claim the 'Tree' symbol, and issued a notification under paragraph 17 of the 1968 Order listing the Socialist Party as a national party with 'Tree' as its symbol. The appellants contended that the case was covered by paragraph 15, which deals with rival sections of a recognised political party; that Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and paragraph 18 of the 1968 Order applied; and that the order was void because no inquiry was held regarding allegiance of the majority of members. The Court held that paragraph 15 was not attracted because the appellants did not claim the recognised Socialist Party but claimed its dissolution and rebirth. Paragraph 16 applied, and the expression 'joining together' was broad enough to include merger, federation, and incomplete or invalid extinction. The Commission's decision under paragraph 16 was binding on the new party and all component units. Rules 5 and 10 were not applicable, and paragraph 16 prevailed over them because the rules were subject to the Commission's directions. Paragraph 18(b) was only for removal of implementation difficulties, and none existed. No inquiry into majority allegiance was required under paragraph 16. Even assuming the merger was invalid and the old SSP continued, it was a component unit and bound by the decision. The Court distinguished Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India. The appeal was dismissed, and the Chief Election Commissioner's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Election Symbols - Recognition of New Political Party - Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Paragraphs 15 and 16 - Paragraph 15 deals with rival sections of a recognised political party claiming to be that party, but the appellant group did not claim the recognised Socialist Party; they claimed dissolution and rebirth of the old SSP. The case fell under paragraph 16, which covers formation of a new political party by joining together of at least one recognised political party and another political party. The expression 'joining together' includes merger resulting in extinction, federation retaining separate identities, and cases where extinction process is incomplete or invalid. Once the Election Commission recognises the new party and allots a symbol under paragraph 16, its decision is binding on the new party and all component units. Held that paragraph 15 was not attracted and the Commission's order was valid. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Election Law - Election Symbols - Applicability of Conduct of Election Rules and Paragraph 18 - Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Paragraphs 16 and 18; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rules 5 and 10 - Rule 5 deals with specification of symbols for candidates in constituencies, and Rule 10(4) applies when the Returning Officer considers a candidate's choice of symbol; neither applies to recognition and allotment to a political party. Paragraph 16 of the Order prevails over Rules 5 and 10 because the rules are expressly subject to directions or restrictions issued by the Election Commission. Paragraph 18(b) permits instructions for removal of difficulty, but no difficulty arose in implementing paragraph 16. Held that no inquiry into majority allegiance was required, and the order was not void for lack of such inquiry. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Election Law - Political Party Merger - Effect of Invalid or Incomplete Merger - Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Paragraph 16(2) - Even if the merger of SSP into Socialist Party was not a valid and accomplished fact and the old SSP had a ceaseless existence, the SSP would be regarded as a component unit of the Socialist Party and bound by the Chief Election Commissioner's decision under paragraph 16(2). The Court did not decide whether SSP had merged and lost separate identity or whether the association could be dissolved by a majority, as it was unnecessary. Held that the Commission's recognition and allotment of 'Tree' symbol to the Socialist Party was binding. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 applied to rival sections of a recognised political party claiming to be that party; whether Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and paragraph 18 of the 1968 Order applied; whether the Chief Election Commissioner was required to hold an inquiry regarding allegiance of majority of members
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 was not attracted; the case fell under paragraph 16. The expression 'joining together' in paragraph 16 included merger, federation, and cases of incomplete or invalid extinction. The Commission's decision under paragraph 16(2) was binding on the newly formed party and all component units, including the SSP even if its merger was invalid. Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and paragraph 18 of the Order did not apply. No inquiry into majority allegiance was required. The order of the Chief Election Commissioner recognising the Socialist Party as a national party with 'Tree' symbol was upheld.
Law Points
- New political party formed by joining together of at least one recognised political party and another political party may apply for recognition under paragraph 16 of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order
- 1968
- decision of Election Commission binding on newly formed party and all component units
- expression 'joining together' includes merger
- federation retaining separate identities
- and incomplete or invalid extinction
- paragraph 15 applies only to rival sections of the same recognised political party
- Rules 5 and 10 of Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961 subject to directions of Election Commission and do not govern recognition/allotment to political parties
- paragraph 18(b) only for removal of implementation difficulties
- no inquiry into majority allegiance required under paragraph 16
