Unrecognized political parties cannot claim a common election symbol in municipal elections as they do not fulfill recognition criteria established under relevant electoral regulations.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].

1. The petitioner, Bhartiya Janta Dal Integrated ["BJDI"] is a political party, registered with the Election Commission of India ["ECI"], but not recognised either as a national party or a State party. BJDI contested elections to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ["MCD"] in 2021. The grievance with which it has approached this Court is that the candidates belonging to the BJDI were not allotted a common symbol, but were compelled to contest on individual symbols for the MCD election, akin to independent candidates.

2. The relief sought in the writ petition is as follows: -

"(a) Issue a writ, direction, order more in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/directions thereby directing the respondents not to treat the candidates of unrecognized Political Party as Independent Candidate in MCD Election but to treat them as a candidate of unrecognized political party.

(b) Pass such other or further order as may be deems fit and necessary by the court in favour of the petitioner at large and against the respondents."

3. Mr. S. Yadav, learned counsel for BJDI, submits that, as a registered political party under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ["RP Act"], albeit unrecognised, BJDI is entitled to be treated, for the purposes of the MCD election also, as a political party with a common symbol. He submits that this is the practice in the case of unrecognised parties for elections to the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies.

4. Mr. Sidhant Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 - Election Commission of India ["ECI"] submits that in respect of MCD elections, the ECI has no role and the appropriate authority is only the State Election Commission ["SEC"].

5. Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, learned counsel for the SEC, disputes the contention raised by Mr. Yadav. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subramaniam Swamy vs. Election Commission of India (Through its Secretary) [(2008) 14 SCC 318] and the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Swaraj India vs. State Election Commission and Anr. [(2017) 238 DLT 723], to contend that an unrecognised party is not entitled to a common symbol in the MCD elections.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for the relief sought.

7. Section 29A of the RP Act provides for registration of political parties. The eligibility criteria for recognition as a "State party" or a "National party" are stated in Paragraphs 6A and 6B respectively, of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 ["1968 Order"]. All other political parties remain registered, but are treated as unrecognised. It is undisputed that BJDI does not meet the criteria for recognition in either category.

8. Paragraph 1(2) of the 1968 Order clarifies that it applies to elections for parliamentary and assembly constituencies. Various paragraphs of the 1968 Order deal with allotment of symbols to candidates, including those put up by political parties. The allotment of common symbols to candidates set up by a registered unrecognised political party is governed by Paragraph 10B of the 1968 Order, which was inserted by a notification dated 16.09.2011.

9. As far as elections to the MCD are concerned, the applicable order is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 2017 ["2017 Order"]. The 2017 Order has been made by the SEC in exercise of powers conferred by Section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation