Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission's Reallocation of Reserved Symbol After Political Party Split. The Court held that under Rule 5(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the Election Commission could amend the list of symbols to reflect changed party realities, restoring the 'Hut' symbol to the Praja Socialist Party after its short-lived merger with the Socialist Party.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute concerned the allotment of reserved election symbols to recognized political parties in India. Under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, framed under Section 169 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Election Commission specifies symbols and restrictions for their use by candidates at parliamentary and assembly elections. These symbols are of two kinds: free symbols, which belong to no one in particular, and reserved symbols, which the Election Commission assigns to recognized political parties based on their electoral performance. Political parties attach great importance to their reserved symbols because the symbol becomes identified with the party and assists in election propaganda. In the 1962 general election, the Praja Socialist Party had the 'Hut' as its reserved election symbol, while the Socialist Party had the 'Tree'. In June 1964, the Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist Party merged to form the Samyukta Socialist Party, and the Election Commission allotted the 'Hut' symbol to this new amalgamated party, while the 'Tree' became a free symbol. The union proved short-lived. At the inaugural meeting of the National Ad Hoc Committee held at Banaras on January 31, 1965, the two parties broke apart. The Praja Socialist Party claimed that the split restored the position as it existed before the merger, while the Samyukta Socialist Party claimed that the merger was final and that it continued as the united party despite some members defecting. The Election Commission, acting on a representation by the Praja Socialist Party, withdrew the 'Hut' as the reserved symbol of the Samyukta Socialist Party and restored it to the Praja Socialist Party, allotting at the same time the 'Tree' symbol to the Samyukta Socialist Party. The Samyukta Socialist Party challenged this order before the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition summarily on November 18, 1965. The party then appealed to the Supreme Court after obtaining special leave. Additionally, Madhu Limaye, a Member of Parliament and a member of the Samyukta Socialist Party, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution directly before the Supreme Court seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights and challenging the constitutionality of Rule 5(1) and the notifications. Both matters were heard together. The appellants argued that the new Rule 5(1) differed from the earlier rule because the last eight words, which expressly conferred power to amend the list of symbols, had been dropped. They contended that under the new rule the Election Commission could only place restrictions on the choice of a candidate or party, and once the choice was made it became final. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that the restrictions framed by the Commission themselves required fresh notifications when circumstances changed. Before a candidate can choose a symbol it must be free; before a reserved symbol can be chosen, the candidate must be accredited to the party whose symbol it is and the symbol must be shown in the Commission's notification as the symbol of that party. If circumstances change—such as parties coming into existence or ceasing to exist, uniting or separating—the notification must follow suit. The Commission could not be bound by its own notification if the facts changed; it must act in consonance with facts and must not favour one party so as to harm others. On the facts, the Court found that the merger had failed before any significant time had passed. The leaders and almost all the original members of the Praja Socialist Party had decided to quit the amalgamated party, which was now under the name of the unified party but was no longer the unified party it had been. The 'Hut' had been the symbol of the Praja Socialist Party, and the unified party had chosen that symbol because of the greater success of the Praja Socialist Party at the polls. Since the disagreement led to a quick break-up before the new party or its symbol could become properly grounded, the reversion to the original position was not only logical but also eminently just. The Court concluded that the Election Commission had proceeded along the right lines and reached the right conclusion both legally and in the light of facts ascertained from impartial sources. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the writ petition, upholding the Election Commission's order.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition, upholding the Election Commission's order. It held that the Election Commission had the power under Rule 5(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to amend the list of symbols, and that the withdrawal of the 'Hut' symbol from the Samyukta Socialist Party and its allotment to the Praja Socialist Party was legal and just in the circumstances.

Law Points