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 practices.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 7921/2022 (Under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing the certified copies and legible copies of the documents)

1.1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

1.2. The plaintiff shall file better copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

1.3. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 7920/2022 (U/o XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for ad interim ex parte injunction)

2. This application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the plaintiff with the prayer that the defendant No.1-Society be restrained from holding the Elections scheduled for 22nd May, 2022 till the disposal of the issue of allotment of common symbol to the respective candidates contesting the elections and that elections be not conducted till the allotment of common symbols to various defendants is held to be against public policy and natural justice and against the welfare of the defendant No.1-Society.

3. The Notice of the suit and the application was served upon the defendants who appeared through their Counsels. At the outside ld. Senior Counsel clarified that the prayer for stay of elections was not being pressed and the elections scheduled to be held on 22nd May, 2022 may not be stayed but an ad-interim injunction was sought to the extent that the ballot papers may be reprinted and contestants may not be allowed to be represented through their symbols in the ballot papers.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff had sought specific information regarding allotment of symbols from the Returning Officer by his Letter dated 02nd May, 2022 to which only response given by returning Officer via e-mail dated 03rd May, 2022 was that the question was premature. Despite seeking specific information in regard to the allotment of symbol to a group, the Returning Officer failed to respond with any affirmative information. The pattern of symbols issued by the Returning Officer to a group of persons contesting the elections is totally contrary and in contravention to the response given by the Returning Officer, vide his letter dated 03rd May, 2022 in regard to common symbols for a group of persons.

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued on behalf of the plaintiff that there is a procedure to be followed for allotment of symbols and the same could not have been done by the Returning Officer randomly without following any procedure. The allotment of a common symbol to a group of people would lead to unfair elections and this can never be permitted.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the ballot papers in addition to showing the names of the candidates, also displays the allotted symbols against their names. The plaintiff at this stage is not seeking the stay of the elections scheduled for 22nd May, 2022, but the only request is to reprint the ballot papers without the symbols being put