Delhi HC Upholds Election Symbols Order, Backs EC's Plenary Powers

The Court ruled that the distinction between "recognised" and "unrecognised" political parties is constitutionally permissible and does not violate Article 14.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal rejected the plea filed by Hind Samrajya Party, which had sought to strike down various provisions of the Symbols Order, including paragraphs 5(2), 6A, 6B and 6C, and had questioned the Election Commission's authority to classify political parties as national or state parties.

The Court categorically held that the Symbols Order is a "compendium of directions" issued to ensure free and fair elections and flows directly from Article 324 of the Constitution, read with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

Relying on a long line of Supreme Court precedents, the Bench observed that the Election Commission is constitutionally empowered to regulate recognition of political parties and allotment of election symbols.

Rejecting the petitioner's argument that the Central Government alone could frame rules under Section 169 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the Election Commission's independent authority to issue directions in electoral matters, including symbol reservation and recognition of parties.

The Bench further held that privileges granted to recognised political parties, such as reserved symbols, access to electoral rolls, and other statutory benefits, are based on objective criteria and past electoral performance.

Such classification, the Court ruled, constitutes a valid and reasonable distinction and does not amount to hostile discrimination against newly registered or unrecognised political parties.

The Court also reiterated that contesting elections or seeking a particular election symbol is not a fundamental right but a statutory right, subject to conditions prescribed under election law.

Merely because a registered political party does not qualify as a recognised state or national party, it cannot claim parity with parties that have met the prescribed benchmarks under the Symbols Order.

Observing that the issues raised in the petition had already been settled by the Supreme Court in decisions such as Sadiq Ali, Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam, and the Constitution Bench ruling in Anoop Baranwal, the High Court concluded that the petition was an attempt to reopen or relitigate a settled issue.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Court declined to grant any injunction restraining the Election Commission or the Union Government from enforcing provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or the Election Symbols Order, 1968.

- ANI