Delhi High Court Upholds ECI's 'First-Come-First-Served' Rule for Free Election Symbols

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on March 1, 2024, dismissed a writ petition challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) method of allotting free election symbols to registered but unrecognized political parties, specifically upholding the 'first-come-first-served' principle as enshrined in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora , in a plea filed by the Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Naam Tamilar Katchi, is a registered, unrecognized political party that has previously used the " Ganna Kisan " ( Sugarcane Farmer ) symbol in multiple elections since 2019, including the 2019 Lok Sabha elections and the 2021 Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly elections, where it secured a significant vote share.

For the upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha elections, NTK applied to the ECI for the allotment of the " Ganna Kisan " symbol. However, the ECI had already allotted this symbol to another party (Respondent No. 2 in the petition) based on its application received on December 17, 2023, which was the first day applications were accepted, adhering to the 'first-come-first-served' rule. NTK's application was filed on February 9, 2024.

Petitioner's Challenge

Aggrieved by the ECI's decision, NTK challenged the constitutional validity of Explanation (iv) and Proviso 1 to Explanation (iv) of Paragraph 10B(B) of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, arguing that the 'first-come-first-served' principle is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The party contended that voters in Tamil Nadu associate the " Ganna Kisan " symbol with NTK and that all valid applications received within the stipulated window period should be considered equally, seeking a re-casting of the phrase 'same date' in the Provisos.

ECI's Defence

The ECI, represented by its standing counsel, argued that the allotment was made strictly in accordance with the established procedure based on the 'first-come-first-served' principle, which is the foundational basis for allocating free symbols to unrecognized parties. The ECI submitted that the Respondent No. 2 applied first and was therefore entitled to the symbol as per the rules. It was contended that allowing the petitioner's plea would undermine the entire scheme for free symbol allotment and blur the distinction between reserved and free symbols. The ECI also pointed out that NTK itself had previously benefited from this very procedure.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The High Court, after considering the submissions, noted that the petitioner conceded that the allotment to the other party was made in accordance with the existing procedure under Paragraph 10B(B). The core of the petitioner's argument was the constitutional validity of the rule itself and a plea to re-interpret or re-cast the language of the Order.

The Court firmly rejected the petitioner's request to re-cast the provision by replacing the phrase 'same date' with 'within permissible time period'. The bench held that such an action would effectively render the 'first-come-first-served' principle, which is central to Explanation (iv), otiose and would amount to the Court re-writing the statute, which is impermissible.

Citing Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal , V. Jagannadha Rao , and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of NI Act 1881 , the Court reiterated the well-settled principle that courts cannot add words to a statute or re-write legislation.

The Court found that the scheme of Explanation (iv) and its Provisos is consistent, non-discriminatory, and applies uniformly to all eligible applicants based on the objective criteria of the application date. It also noted that the rules provide reasonable preferences for parties with prior symbol allotment or elected representatives in cases where applications are received on the same date (Proviso 2 and 3), but these preferences are still triggered by the 'same date' condition.

Distinguishing the Supreme Court judgment in Anant Raj Ltd. v. State of Haryana , which the petitioner relied upon to challenge the 'first-come-first-served' principle, the High Court observed that the Anant Raj case dealt with the misuse of the principle in the alienation of public property where there was insufficient public notice of the policy. In contrast, the ECI had given months of advance notice regarding the date for receiving applications for free symbols, and NTK was fully aware of and had previously utilized this procedure.

Conclusion

Finding no arbitrariness or unconstitutionality in the ECI's allotment process or the challenged provisions of the Election Symbols Order as applied in this case, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition along with pending applications. The judgment reaffirms the validity of the 'first-come-first-served' principle for allocating free election symbols to unrecognized parties when applications are received on different dates.