The denial of an electoral symbol without legal justification disrupts democratic elections, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure fairness and equity.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) rendered by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) dismissing Letters Patent Appeal No. 151 of 2023 filed by the Appellants and upholding the interim order of a learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1933 of 2023.

BRIEF FACTS:

4. The controversy involved in this lis is the non-allocation of the Plough symbol to the writ petitioner, the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference/Respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as “R1”) for its candidates to contest the then-upcoming General Elections of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil (hereinafter referred to as the “LAHDC”). In view of the urgency in the matter, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 09.08.2023, the operative portion whereof at Paragraph 11 reads as under:

“11. Keeping in view that the upcoming General Election of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) stands announced, the petitioner-party is directed to approach the office of the respondents 1 to 3 and 5, for notifying the reserved symbol (plough) already allotted to it and respondents 1 to 3 and 5 shall notify the symbol allotted to petitioner-party in terms of Paragraphs 10 and 10(A) of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and allow the candidates set up by the petitioner-party to contest on the reserved election symbol (plough) already allotted to the party.”

5. Aggrieved, the Appellants moved the learned Division Bench of the High Court by preferring an appeal, which after hearing was dismissed vide Impugned Judgment on 14.08.2023.

SUBMISSION BY THE APPELLANTS:

6. Mr. K. M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General (hereinafter referred to as the “ASG”) for the Appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court have issued directions contrary to law. It was submitted that both orders have been passed on an erroneous assumption that the provisions of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the “1968 Order”) would be applicable in elections to the LAHDC. Learned ASG canvassed that this is not the correct legal position as the LAHDC election is being conducted by the Election Authority of the Union Territory of Ladakh constituted under Rule 5 of The Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (Election) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “1995 Rules”). It was contended that the Election Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the “ECI”) is empowered to hold elections to the Parliamentary and State Assembly constituencies and for the present LAHDC elections, the ECI does not exercise any authority. Thus, the learned ASG submitted that any reference to the provisions of the 1968 Order is misplaced.

7. Learned ASG, further, contended that Paragraphs No. 9, 10 and 10(A) of the 1968 Order speak of restrictions on the allotment of symbols reserved for State Parties in States where such parties are not recognized; concession to candidates se