Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B Krishna Mohan, J.
Rastriya Praja Congress (Secular) - Appellant
Versus
The Election Commission of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3332 and 6800 of 2024
Decided On : 16-04-2024
Election Symbols - Allotment of Common Symbol - Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 - The court discussed the provisions of para 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which require political parties to submit applications in proforma and in order, enclosing all necessary documents and information, for the allotment of common symbols. The court emphasized the first-come-first-served basis for considering applications and highlighted the importance of completeness of applications at the time of submission. The court also referred to the decision of the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, which upheld the rejection of an incomplete application for allotment of a common symbol. The judgment was based on the interpretation and application of the legal provisions under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed writ petitions questioning the rejection of their applications for allotment of common symbols for the upcoming General Elections, citing premature submissions and incomplete proforma as reasons for non-consideration by the 1st respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's applications were made prematurely and were incomplete, contrary to the provisions of para 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The court also noted that the 1st respondent's decision to reject the petitioner's applications and to allot a common symbol to the 4th respondent was in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's applications for allotment of common symbols, the completeness of the applications, and the legality of the 1st respondent's decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that applications for allotment of common symbols must be submitted in proforma and in order, enclosing all necessary documents and information, as required by para 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The court emphasized the first-come-first-served basis for considering applications and ruled that incomplete applications would be rightly rejected.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's applications and the allotment of a common symbol to the 4th respondent, concluding that the decisions were just and proper in accordance with the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
COMMON ORDER
B Krishna Mohan, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent in the 1st case.
2. The W.P.No. 3332 of 2024 is filed questioning the letter of the 1st respondent dated 18.08.2023 and the letter of the 1st respondent dated 24.01.2024.
3. The W.P.No. 6800 of 2024 is filed questioning the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the letter dated 06.02.2024 addressed to the petitioner by not considering the application of the petitioner dated 16.10.2023 and 20.12.2023 under 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
4. Under the impugned letter dated 18.08.2023 of the 1st respondent addressed to the petitioner, it was informed that the application of the petitioner dated 13.05.2023 was received on 17.05.2023 requesting for allotment of common symbol to the candidates of the petitioner-party in the upcoming General Elections in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, found to be premature as it was made prior to the prescribed time period as per para 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and as the said application was submitted in an incomplete proforma, it has not been considered.
5. Under the impugned letter of the 1st respondent dated 24.01.2024, the 4th respondent along with the other parties were given concessions as sought under para 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 for the forthcoming General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim, 2024. In which the 4th respondent is allotted 'Glass Tumbler' as common symbol to contest in all the 175 Assembly Constituencies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The application of the 4th respondent is dated 12.12.2023 in proforma for allotment of common symbol under para 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968, which was submitted by hand on the same day. As per para 10-B (A) (ii) of the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968, the application can be made by any party to the 1st respondent commission at any time during the period commencing from six (6) months prior to the date of expiry of the term of the Assembly and latest by five (5) clear days before the date of which the notification (or the 1st phase of the notifications in the case of phased Elections) of the Election is scheduled to be issued. As per the para 10-B (A) (iv) of the said order 1968, the party shall give the names of the 10 symbols in order of preference from out of list of free symbols notified by the Commission under paragraph 17 of that order. It is the contention of the petitioner that the application of the 4th respondent is not in order and Annexure-I was not given by the 4th respondent. Whereas the petitioner made another application in proforma dated 20.12.2023, which was received by the 1st respondent on 26.12.2023. The window of the 1st respondent was open on 12.12.2023 in terms of para 10-B (A) (ii) as stated above.
6. The learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent submits that any application received on or after 12.12.2023 would be considered by the 1st respondent commission on first come, first served basis as per para 10-B explanation (iv) of the above said Order, 1968. In this case, the petitioner's application is dated 20.12.2023 and the 4th respondent's application is dated 12.12.2023 as already stated above in detail.
7. The learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent produces the relevant extract of the Inward Register of the 1st respondent commission with respect to the application of the 4th respondent, which shows that the application of the 4th respondent dated 12.12.2023 was received by one Mr. Kamal Sharma, R&I, Employee of the 1st respondent on 12.12.2023 at 10.29 a.m and the same was forwarded immediately to one Ms. Jaydeb Lahiri, Secretary, PPS-II of the 1st respondent. Ultimately, the result was communicated
AI
The court upheld the Election Commission's rejection of an incomplete application for a common symbol, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements.
Point of law: It is the political parties which sponsor candidates, that are in a position to incur large election expenses which often run into astronomical figures. We do not consider that preferri....
The court reaffirmed that judicial intervention in election processes should be limited and only warranted under clear violations, emphasizing the need for election integrity and established practice....
The court established that the Election Symbols Order is an order under the Representation of the People Act, and violations can be grounds for election petitions.
The court upholds the right to symbol allotment under the relevant electoral statutes while ensuring procedural compliance.
The court established that the Election Symbols Order is integral to the electoral process and violations must be addressed through election petitions, not writs.
The Election Authority of UT of Ladakh has the competence to allocate election symbols, and the court's order did not contravene the Election Symbols Order of 1968.
The impugned clauses in the letters of registration were referable to the Second Amendment Order 1989 and within the Election Commission's power and jurisdiction.
The denial of an electoral symbol without legal justification disrupts democratic elections, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure fairness and equity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
