Delhi High Court Mandates ECI Allot Symbol to ABJS for Bihar Polls, Citing Prior Conduct

New Delhi – In a significant ruling underscoring the principles of fairness and consistency in electoral processes, the Delhi High Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to forthwith allot a common election symbol to the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh (ABJS) for the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly elections. The order, delivered by Justice Mini Pushkarna on October 9, 2025, sets aside the ECI's earlier refusal, which was predicated on alleged internal disputes within the political party.

The judgment in Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh v. ECI serves as a critical examination of the ECI's administrative discretion and reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding the statutory rights of political entities, particularly unrecognised parties, to participate effectively in elections.

Background of the Litigation: A Twice-Fought Battle

The Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh, a registered but unrecognised political party established in 1989, initiated legal action after the ECI, through a communication dated September 1, 2025, rejected its application for a common symbol. The party, which claims lineage from the original Bharatiya Jana Sangh founded by Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee, argued that the lack of a common symbol would critically impair its ability to contest the Bihar polls, effectively depriving it of a fair opportunity.

This was the second time the ABJS had approached the High Court on this matter. In a prior petition, the Court had directed the ECI on August 25 to expeditiously consider the party's representation. However, the subsequent rejection by the ECI prompted the fresh writ petition, challenging the poll body's decision as "evasive, erroneous and devoid of reasoning."

The core of the ECI's objection was the existence of an "internal dispute." The Commission cited communications from an individual named Sameer Singh Chandel, who claimed to be the party's national president, as evidence of a factional rift that precluded the allotment of a symbol.

Court's Reasoning: Past Precedent and Substantive Justice

In a decisive move, Justice Mini Pushkarna's bench found the ECI's reasoning insufficient, particularly in light of its own past actions. The Court gave significant weight to the fact that the ECI had previously allotted the 'Sitar' symbol to the ABJS for the recently concluded 2024 Andhra Pradesh Assembly elections.

The court order explicitly stated, “The Court allowed the plea keeping in view the fact that the party was allowed by ECI to contest the Andhra Pradesh Assembly Elections and was also allotted a common symbol for the same.”

This prior allotment became a crucial factor, suggesting a level of inconsistency in the ECI's decision-making process. The Court noted that while the ECI counsel contended an internal inquiry had been launched into how the symbol was granted for the Andhra Pradesh polls, "the said fact would have no bearing on the present writ petition." This effectively prevented the ECI from using a potential internal oversight as a justification for denying the party its rights in the present context.

Furthermore, the petitioner, represented by Advocate Pranay Ranjan, successfully argued that the alleged internal dispute was no longer material. The Court was informed that Sameer Singh Chandel had been expelled from the party in 2019 and therefore had no standing in its current affairs. The party had also submitted a letter dated March 25 detailing its new office bearers, seemingly resolving any ambiguity regarding its official leadership structure.

The final directive from the Court was unambiguous:

“…it is directed that the petitioner shall submit the requisite application in terms of the requirement of the Election Commission. Subject to the petitioner complying with the said direction, it is directed that a common symbol shall be allotted forthwith to the petitioner in order to allow the petitioner to contest the State Assembly Election of Bihar which has already been announced.”

The Court mandated the ABJS to submit a fresh application in compliance with the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, upon which the ECI is bound to allot a symbol without delay.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

This ruling carries several important legal implications for election jurisprudence and administrative law:

• Judicial Scrutiny of ECI's Discretion: The order reaffirms that while the ECI holds broad constitutional and statutory powers, its administrative decisions are not immune from judicial review. Courts can intervene when a decision appears arbitrary, inconsistent, or not based on substantive material. The rejection based on a dispute involving an expelled member was viewed as an insufficient ground, especially when contradicted by the ECI's recent conduct.

• The Right to Contest Elections: The petitioner successfully framed the issue as a matter of fundamental electoral rights. The plea asserted that the ABJS possessed a "Constitutional guarantee and a statutory right to contest elections subject to statutory safeguards." The Court's intervention ensures this right is not procedurally frustrated by what it deemed an unjustifiable administrative hurdle. For unrecognised parties, a common symbol is not merely a logistical convenience but a vital tool for voter recognition and campaign cohesion.

• Principle of Consistency in Administrative Action: By highlighting the ECI's decision to allot a symbol in the Andhra Pradesh elections, the High Court implicitly invoked the principle that administrative bodies should act consistently. While not a strict application of estoppel, the prior action created a legitimate expectation and weakened the ECI's subsequent claim of being constrained by an internal dispute.

• Interpreting 'Internal Disputes': The judgment provides guidance on the threshold for what constitutes a material "internal dispute" sufficient to deny a party a symbol. A claim by a previously expelled member, especially when the party has furnished updated records of its office bearers, may not meet this threshold. It suggests the ECI must conduct a more substantive inquiry rather than relying on mere allegations of a dispute.

Conclusion: A Victory for Electoral Fairness

The Delhi High Court's directive is a significant victory for the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh, enabling its participation in the Bihar elections on a level playing field with other parties. More broadly, the judgment serves as a salient reminder to the Election Commission of India of the need for reasoned, consistent, and fair application of electoral laws. It reinforces that administrative processes, especially those integral to the democratic exercise, must be transparent and substantively just. For legal practitioners in election law, this case provides a valuable precedent on challenging ECI decisions and emphasizes the strategic importance of documenting a consistent pattern of conduct.