Delhi HC Upholds Election Symbols Order 1968, Rejects Bias Claim

The Delhi High Court has decisively dismissed a challenge brought by the Hind Samrajya Party against the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 . A division bench consisting of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal reaffirmed that the Election Commission of India (ECI) possesses the plenary authority to frame regulations necessary for maintaining the purity and fairness of the electoral process.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The petitioner, a registered political party, sought to strike down several provisions of the 1968 Symbols Order, including paragraphs 5(2), 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C. The party argued that the current legal framework discriminates against unrecognized or newly formed political parties by granting "undue privileges" to national and state-recognized parties. These privileges, they alleged, violated Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an uneven playing field in areas such as symbol allotment, media access, and expenditure limits.

The petitioner contended that the ECI exceeded its jurisdiction by framing the Symbols Order without a specific mandate from the Central Government under Section 169 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 .

Arguments from the Petitioner and Respondents

The Hind Samrajya Party argued that because the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) does not expressly define a "recognized political party," any distinction created by the ECI's subordinate order is inherently arbitrary. They maintained that all registered parties should be treated as a single class, entitled to equal access to public resources.

Conversely, the Union of India and the Election Commission defended the current framework by emphasizing that the Symbols Order is not a static set of rules but a dynamic compendium of directions. They argued that recognition is not a fundamental right but a contingent benefit linked to a party’s demonstrated electoral performance and compliance with electoral discipline.

Legal Analysis and Precedents

The Court found that the issues raised by the petitioner were "settled law," having been previously addressed by the Supreme Court in multiple landmark judgments. Relying on Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India and * Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India , the Delhi High Court reiterated that the ECI's power to issue directives flows directly from Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests the "superintendence, direction and control" of elections in the Commission, working in tandem with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961*.

The Court noted that the distinction between recognized and unrecognized parties is a reasonable classification aimed at ensuring orderly and fair elections, rather than a violation of equality laws.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several critical points regarding the nature of the ECI's authority:

• "The Commission is an authority created by the Constitution... the superintendence, direction and control of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of elections... shall be vested in the Commission."
• "The Symbols Order is, therefore, a compendium of directions in the shape of general provisions to meet various kinds of situations appertaining to elections with particular reference to symbols."
• "Allotment of an election symbol cannot be claimed as a fundamental right... It is a statutory right. It is also well settled that the Election Commission has plenary powers and could exercise the same to ensure free and fair elections."

The Final Verdict

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Hind Samrajya Party failed to provide grounds for declaring the Symbols Order ultra vires. The Court clarified that the classification of parties based on electoral achievement is a necessary administrative function to maintain the sanctity of the democratic process. This ruling reinforces the ECI's functional autonomy and ensures the stability of the long-standing regulatory framework governing Indian elections.