SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. Chelameswar, JJ.
Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam and another - Petitioners
Versus
Election Commission of India - Respondent(s)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 532 of 2008, WITH W.P. (C) Nos. 315, 422 of 2009, S.L.P. (C) No. 23494 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 426, 444, 454, 463, 447, 132, of 2009, S.L.P. (C) No. 7379 to 7380 of 2009, W.P. (C) Nos. 111, 117, 125, 124 and 128 of 2011.
Decided On : 18-4-2012
Election Symbols Order, 1968 - Clause 6, 6A(i) and (ii) , Clause 6B – Constitution of India - Article 324 - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 29A, 100(1)(d)(iv) - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 Rules 5 and 10 - Reservation and Allotment – Election - Constitutional validity of the amendment of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the "Election Symbols Order, 1968", vide Notification, substituting Clause 6 with 6A(i) and (ii) and Clause 6B therein. The same was taken up for final hearing along with several other Writ Petitions on account of the common issue involved therein. The common grievance in all these writ petitions is with regard to the amendment which mandates that in order to be recognised as a State party in the State, it would have to secure not less than 6% of the total valid votes polled in the State and should also have returned at least 2 members to the Legislative Assembly of the State - Held, Court, failed to appreciate that in a "democratic set up", while the majorities rule, minorities are entitled to protection. Otherwise, the mandate of Article 14 would be meaningless. If democracies are all about only numbers, Hitler was a great democrat - Status of majority or minority, even an insignificant minority, could only be transient. Further, the question as to what is the legitimate purpose sought to be achieved by the classification under the Symbols Order, was not considered - All the abovementioned reasons, I would hold that the Symbols Order, insofar as it denies the reservation of a symbol for the exclusive allotment of the candidates set up by a political party with "insignificant poll performance", is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
Altmas Kabir, J. (Surinder Singh Nijjar agreeing, Chelameswar, J. dissenting)
1. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 532 of 2008 was filed by Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam and Colonel Edwin Jesudoss (Retd.), challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the "Election Symbols Order, 1968", vide Notification No. O.N. 56/2000/Jud-III dated 1st December, 2000, substituting Clause 6 with 6A(i) and (ii) and Clause 6B therein. The same was taken up for final hearing along with several other Writ Petitions on account of the common issue involved therein. The common grievance in all these writ petitions is with regard to the amendment which mandates that in order to be recognised as a State party in the State, it would have to secure not less than 6% of the total valid votes polled in the State and should also have returned at least 2 members to the Legislative Assembly of the State.
2. The grievance of the Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam is that it had been refused recognition as a State party by the Election Commission of India, although, it secured 8.33% of the valid votes in the Assembly elections. It is the further grievance of the Petitioners that in view of the amendment made to Clause 6 of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, it had been denied recognition on account of the cumulative effect of the requirement that a political party would not only have secure not less than 6% of the total valid votes polled, but it had also to return at least 2 members to the Legislative Assembly of the State. It is the Petitioners' case that despite having secured a larger percentage of the votes than was required, it was denied recognition, since it had failed to return 2 members to the Legislative Assembly.
3. In order to appreciate the case made out by the writ petitioners, it would be apposite at this stage to look into the background in which the Election Symbols Order, 1968, came to be pronounced.
4. After the commencement of the Constitution on 26th January, 1950, the Election Commission was constituted under Article 324 of the Constitution. On 30th July, 1951, the Commission held a conference in New Delhi with 7 established political parties organised on an all-India basis and discussed the possibilities of allotting a distinctive symbol to each one of them all over India. During the deliberations, the participants generally agreed that the same symbols would be used throughout India for all candidates of a party, both for parliamentary and assembly elections. What also fell for discussion was whether where among several constituencies one of the seats was reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the candidates belonging to a party would be allotted the party's symbol. The said discussions led to ad hoc recognition being given by the Election Commission to several parties as national or multi- state parties and allotted to them the symbols as were shown against their names.
5. Drawing inspiration from the first General Elections conducted by the Election Commission in 1951-52, the Election Commission decided to withdraw recognition from such parties whose poll performance was far below the standards to merit, further recognition. However, giving due recognition to the fact that some of the parties were new and were not fully organised before the elections, the Commission fixed 3% of the valid votes polled in the elections as the minimum standard for grant of recognition. In the case of national parties, such percentage was calculated with reference to the votes polled in regard to elections to the House of the People, while in the case of State parties, the votes polled in the elections to the State Legislative Assemblies were the factors to be considered. On account of the standards laid down, only 4 political parties remained eligible for recognition as national parties, namely, (1) Indian National Congress; (2) All India Bhar
All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shillong v. Captain W.A. Sangma
Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar
Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar
Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India
Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner
N.P. Ponnuswamy v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency
Rama Kant Pandey v. Union of India
Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras
Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill
Sakal Paper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Shri Sadiq Ali v. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi
Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India
Superintendent & Legal Remembrancer State of West Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.