2019 Supreme(SC) 131

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Edapaddi K. Palaniswami – Petitioner
Versus
T.T.V. Dhinakaran & Ors. – Respondents
M.A. No.31 In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7258 of 2018
Decided On : 07-02-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
There will not be any infirmity in the petitioners approaching Court in terms of the liberty given.
When the Supreme Court transferred a writ petition from single Judge to a Division Bench it did not empower the Division Bench to sit in appeal over interim order passed by Single Judge.
Writ petition is not a continuation of proceeding of Election Commission.
After a final decision, ECI cannot pass interim order, except when the dispute is pending enquiry before ECI or the final decision of the ECI is sub judice in the proceedings before a constitutional court.
A political group not registered and not recognized may not be entitled to claim allotment of a common symbol. It will be covered by Paragraph 12 and 15 and not 9 to 11 of election Symbol Order. Once that decision by ECI answering the dispute attains finality, the splinter group will have to register itself as a political party and it may be given status of national or State political party in terms of paragraphs 6A to 6C.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – SLP disposed of – Directions given to expedite disposal of pending writ petition before High Court – Liberty given to petitioners to approach the Court in case of announcement of new elections before disposal of the writ petition – Writ petition still pending – Bye-elections to Assembly announced – Petitioners approaching Court in terms of the liberty given – No infirmity – Neither disposal of SLP not pendency of writ petition an impediment in parries to approach the Court. (Para 9, 10)

       (b) Administration of justice – Supreme Court transferring writ petition from single Judge to a Division Bench – Not empowering Division Bench to sit in appeal over interim order passed by Single Judge. (Para 10)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ challenging order of Election Commission of India – Writ having been admitted and progressing on several dates shows that a prima facie case has been made out. (Para 12)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Challenge to final order of ECI – Writ petition not a continuation of proceeding of Election Commission – Open to High Court to set aside final order of ECI and pass interim orders as in present case. (Para 18, 23, 26)

       (2011) 4 SCC 224 – Distinguished

       WP(C) No.532/2008 : (2012) 7 SCC 340; WP(C) No. 177/2009 – Referred

       (e) Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 – Clause 18 r/w Article 324, Constitution of India – Allotment of election symbol not a fundamental right – Butt a statutory right – Election Commission having plenary powers to conduct free and fair elections – However, after a final decision, ECI cannot pass interim order – Except when the dispute is pending enquiry before ECI or the final decision of the ECI is sub judice in the proceedings before a constitutional court – Court of equity in such circumstances can pass interim orders. (Para 20, 21, 22, 35)

       (1982) 1 SCC 691; (1972) 4 SCC 664; (1972) 4 SCC 664– Relied upon

       (f) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 29A r/w Paragraphs 9 to 12 and 15 – A political group not registered and not recognized – May not be entitled to claim allotment of a common symbol – It will be covered by Paragraph 12 and 15 and not 9 to 11 – Once that decision by ECI answering the dispute attains finality, the splinter group will have to register itself as a political party – It may be given status of national or State political party in terms of paragraphs 6A to 6C. (Para 33)

       Facts of the case:

       Special leave petition was filed against the judgment and order dated 9th March, 2018 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M. No.2994/2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10728 of 2017. That writ petition has been filed by respondent No.1 - TTVD to assail the decision of the Election Commission of India dated 23rd November, 2017 - whereby ECI had accepted the claim of respondent Nos.4 to 6 (namely, E. Madhusudhanan, O. Pannerselvam and Thiru. Semmalai) and the SLP petitioner -Edapaddi K. Palaniswami that the group led by respondent No.4 - E. Madhusudhanan was entitled to use the name of the original registered and recognized state political party in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, namely, "All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam" and its reserved symbol "Two Leaves"; and rejected the claim of respondent No.1 - TTVD and respondent No.3 - V.K. Sasikala that the group led by VKS was the real group and was entitled to the use of name and symbol of the party AIADMK. The writ petition challenging the said decision of ECI on diverse grounds is still pending before the Delhi High Court.

       The High Court passed interim order in the writ petition against which the SLP has been filed. Supreme Court kept the High Court order in abeyance and directed expeditious disposal of the writ petition. Liberty was given to the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court if any election is announced during pendency of the writ petition. Availing the liberty petitioners have filed this application.

       Finding of the Court:

       The Election Commission shall process the application preferred by the political group represented by respondent No. 1 - TTVD (writ petitioner) and respondent No.3 - VKS in terms of the interim order of the High Court dated 9th March, 2018 and take it to its logical conclusion expeditiously.

       Result: MA disposed of.