Delhi High Court Questions ECI's Inaction on Jan Sangh's Symbol Plea for Bihar Polls

NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court has stepped in to examine the Election Commission of India's (ECI) alleged administrative inertia, issuing a notice to the poll body following a plea by the Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh (ABJS). The political party approached the court after its repeated requests for the allotment of a common election symbol to contest the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly Elections went unanswered, raising critical questions about the constitutional and statutory rights of political entities to participate in the electoral process.

On August 5, 2025, Justice Mini Pushkarna presided over the matter, ordering the ECI to respond to the allegations of inaction. The court's intervention highlights a significant procedural challenge faced by political parties when dealing with the electoral authority, particularly in the run-up to crucial state elections.

The Core of the Dispute: A Plea for Recognition

The Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh, a party tracing its lineage to the organization founded by Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee in 1951, filed a writ petition through Advocate Pranay Ranjan, seeking judicial intervention to compel the ECI to act. According to the petition, the ABJS formally applied to the ECI on June 2, 2025, under the provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, for the allotment of a common party symbol.

When weeks passed without any communication from the ECI, the party sent a reminder on July 4, 2025, re-emphasizing the urgency of the matter with the Bihar Assembly elections looming. However, the poll body maintained its silence, prompting the ABJS to seek a writ of mandamus from the High Court.

In its plea, the ABJS contended that the ECI's failure to respond is not merely a procedural lapse but an act that effectively curtails its fundamental right to contest elections. The petition powerfully stated, "The Petitioner has a Constitutional guarantee and a statutory right to contest elections subject to statutory safeguards. There has been no response by the Election Commission of India to either letter dated 02.06.2025 and 04.07.2025, and the consequent non-allotment of election symbol will take away its opportunity to contest elections."

The party argued that this inaction would cause irreparable harm, stating, "The Petitioner will be deprived of its Constitutional guarantee and therefore, is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court."

Precedent and Past Participation

To bolster its claim of being a serious and active political contender, the ABJS highlighted its consistent participation in elections. The plea referenced its recent involvement in the 2024 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections, where it contested under the "sitar" symbol.

"This is reflected in the list of political parties participating in the said elections, as well as in the results that were declared. The elections were contested under the banner of Petitioner/ABJS,” the plea detailed. This assertion serves to distinguish the ABJS from nascent or non-serious political outfits, framing it as an established party with a legitimate expectation of a timely response from the ECI. The party’s historical context, originating from the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, further adds weight to its political legacy.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The case, titled Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh v. Election Commission of India , brings to the forefront the delicate balance between the regulatory authority of the ECI and the rights of political parties. For legal professionals, this matter serves as a case study on several key principles:

• Administrative Accountability: The ECI, as a constitutional body, is expected to act in a fair, non-arbitrary, and timely manner. Its failure to respond to applications can be interpreted as a dereliction of duty, making it amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court's decision to issue notice suggests a prima facie acceptance that such administrative silence is questionable.

• Right to Contest Elections: While not a fundamental right in the strictest sense, the right to contest elections is a crucial statutory and constitutional right that underpins a functioning democracy. The allotment of a common symbol is integral to this right, as it enables a party to be easily recognized by voters, thereby ensuring a level playing field. Without a symbol, a party's candidates would be forced to contest as independents, severely diminishing their collective identity and electoral prospects.

• The Mandamus Remedy: The ABJS has sought a writ of mandamus, a judicial remedy compelling a public authority to perform its statutory duty. The success of this plea will hinge on the party's ability to demonstrate that it has a clear legal right to have its application considered and that the ECI has a corresponding public duty to do so. The undisputed fact that two months have passed since the initial application, despite a reminder, strengthens the case for judicial intervention.

Proceedings and The Path Forward

During the hearing on August 5, counsel for the ECI accepted the notice issued by Justice Pushkarna. The court has granted the electoral body time to formulate and file its reply, setting the stage for a substantive hearing.

The ECI will now have to justify its delay or explain the status of the ABJS's application. Its response will be critical in determining whether the delay was due to procedural requirements, pending verifications, or an administrative oversight.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for August 19, 2025. The outcome will be closely watched by political parties and election law practitioners, as it could set a precedent regarding the ECI's obligations to process such applications in a time-bound manner, especially when state elections are imminent. The court’s final direction could reinforce the principle that constitutional bodies cannot use procedural delays to indirectly impact the electoral fairness they are mandated to uphold.