Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Mrinall Shashi Shekhar Chakravorty, a social worker and businessman, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and the explanation to Section 77 and Section 78-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner argued that these provisions violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they create an unreasonable classification between recognized and unrecognized political parties, and between candidates of recognized parties and independent candidates. The petitioner sought various reliefs including freezing of reserved symbols, staying the Symbols Order, and declaring the provisions as unconstitutional. The respondents, the Election Commission of India and the Union of India, defended the provisions, arguing that the classification is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of ensuring free and fair elections. The court, after hearing the petitioner in person and the counsels for the respondents, dismissed the PIL. The court held that the classification of political parties into recognized and unrecognized is not arbitrary but is based on objective criteria such as the party's performance in previous elections. The Symbols Order and the impugned provisions of the RP Act are valid and do not violate Article 14. The court noted that the reservation of symbols for recognized parties helps in avoiding confusion among voters and ensures orderly elections. The court also observed that the provisions regarding election expenses are within the legislative competence and are necessary for transparency. The PIL was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - The challenge to the Election Symbols Order, 1968 and provisions of the RP Act, 1951 on ground of violation of Article 14 was dismissed. The court held that the classification of political parties into recognized and unrecognized is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of ensuring free and fair elections. The Symbols Order and the impugned provisions do not violate Article 14. (Paras 2-10) B) Election Law - Election Symbols Order, 1968 - Validity - The court upheld the validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, stating that it is a reasonable measure to avoid confusion among voters and to ensure orderly elections. The reservation of symbols for recognized parties does not discriminate against unrecognized parties or independent candidates. (Paras 2-10) C) Election Law - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 77 Explanation and Section 78-A - Validity - The court upheld the constitutional validity of the explanation to Section 77 and Section 78-A of the RP Act, 1951, as they are within the legislative competence and do not violate Article 14. The provisions are aimed at regulating election expenses and ensuring transparency. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and the explanation to Section 77 and Section 78-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and the explanation to Section 77 and Section 78-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, holding that they do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of Election Symbols Order
- 1968
- Explanation to Section 77 and Section 78-A of Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- Article 14 of Constitution of India
- Reasonable classification
- Recognized and unrecognized political parties
