NewKerala.com

Delhi HC Upholds Election Symbols Order, Rejects Party's Challenge

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols Order of 1968. The plea, filed by the Hind Samrajya Party, argued the Election Commission lacked the authority to frame the order. The court found no merit in the claims that the rules were arbitrary or discriminatory against newer parties. The existing legal framework for allotting election symbols remains intact.

Key Points: Delhi HC Rejects Challenge to Election Symbols Order of 1968

  • Court upholds 1968 Election Symbols Order
  • Rejects plea by Hind Samrajya Party
  • Affirms ECI's authority on symbols
  • Dismisses claims of arbitrariness
2 min read

Delhi High Court rejects challenge to election symbols allotment rules

Delhi High Court dismisses petition challenging Election Commission's authority to allot electoral symbols under the 1968 Symbols Order.

"no case was made out to disrupt the existing statutory framework governing elections - Delhi High Court"

New Delhi, January 9

The Delhi High Court on Friday turned down a petition challenging the constitutional validity of The Election Symbols Order, 1968, which regulates the specification, reservation and allotment of electoral symbols to political parties and candidates. The court held that no case was made out to disrupt the existing statutory framework governing elections.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal declined to entertain the plea moved by the Hind Samrajya Party, which had questioned the competence of the Election Commission of India to frame and enforce the Symbols Order. A detailed copy of the judgement is yet to be uploaded.

The petitioner had sought a declaration that the 1968 Order was null and void and had urged the court to restrain the ECI from implementing its provisions.

It was argued that the Order was not framed by the Central Government under Section 169 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which, according to the plea, confers rule-making power solely on the Union government after consulting the ECI.

On this basis, the party contended that the Commission lacked independent jurisdiction to issue the Symbols Order. The challenge also targeted paragraphs 6A, 6B and 6C of the Order, which set out the criteria for recognition of national and state parties.

Terming these provisions arbitrary and violative of Article 14, the petitioner claimed that all registered political parties constitute a single class and that extending reserved symbols and procedural advantages to recognised parties discriminates against newly registered entities. The court, however, found no merit in the submissions and dismissed the petition.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
While I understand the court's position on not disrupting the system, the petitioner has a point about a level playing field. It's incredibly hard for new parties to compete when recognised parties get the 'reserved' symbols like lotus, hand, or broom that voters instantly recognise. The process does feel tilted.
R
Rohit P
Good! The ECI must have its autonomy to conduct elections. If every rule had to be made by the Central Government after 'consulting' the ECI, it would become a political tool. The Commission's independence is crucial for free and fair elections. The court has rightly protected that.
S
Sarah B
Interesting legal challenge, but seems like a bit of a long shot. Challenging a 1968 order now? The system might have flaws, but you need a stronger case than this to change it. The criteria for national/state party status (like vote share, seats won) seems logical, not arbitrary.
K
Karthik V
Symbol is everything in Indian elections, especially in rural areas. A voter might not read the name, but they will look for the cycle or the elephant. The existing parties earned that recognition. New parties should focus on building their own identity and grassroots work first.
M
Meera T
Respectfully, I think the court missed an opportunity to at least review the criteria. The world has changed since 1968. Maybe the thresholds for recognition need a re-look to be more inclusive for genuine regional movements, while still filtering out non-serious entities. Just a thought.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50