Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam – Petitioner
Versus
Election Commission of India – Respondent
W.P. No. 35566 of 2016
Decided On : 24-04-2023
Religious Connotation - Registration of Political Party - Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, Section 29A - The court discussed the history of religious symbolism in political party names, the policy decisions of the Election Commission of India, and the statutory provisions related to the registration of political parties. The court held that the word 'Deiveega' in the party's name did not have a religious connotation and directed the Election Commission to accept the party's name for registration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a political party, applied for registration under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The application was rejected by the Election Commission of India on the basis that the proposed name had a religious connotation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the word 'Deiveega' in the party's name did not have a religious connotation and that the rejection of the application was not justified. The court directed the Election Commission to accept the party's name for registration.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation of the proposed party name, the authority of the Election Commission to issue guidelines, and the impact of religious symbolism in political party names on the electoral process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the word 'Deiveega' did not have a religious connotation when considered in the context of the party's name as a whole. The court also affirmed the authority of the Election Commission to issue guidelines in matters concerning the regulation of elections.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the Election Commission was directed to accept the party's name for registration.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is the Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam, a party formed on 05.03.2015. The avowed objective of the party is the promotion of peace and harmony by avoiding religious and caste differences, promotion of economic and social growth bearing faith and allegiance to the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India such as socialism, secularism and democracy.
2. The party desired to contest elections for the purpose of which it was necessary to have the same registered. The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (Act) provides for registration in terms of Section 29A and an application was submitted on 30.03.2016 accompanied by all requisite annexure.
3. While awaiting the processing of the application and registration of the party, the petitioner instead received the impugned order rejecting the application. The basis of the order is that the name proposed for the party, Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam, has a religious connotation and hence cannot be allotted.
4. The first respondent, being the Election Commission of India, (ECI/R1) called upon the petitioner to furnish alternate names for consideration. Certain other particulars were also sought with which the petitioner has no grievance.
5. Though the petitioner, vide letter dated 14.07.2016 responded stating that the proposed name neither intends to, nor conveys any religious connotation, the present writ petition has also been filed pointing out various discrepancies both in terms of the procedure as well as the basis of the rejection.
6. The main argument of the petitioner is that the proposed name particularly the term ‘Deiveega’ conveys the virtues of nobility, devotion and purity that are universal in nature. The term has no religious connotation, and, in any event, has not been used to convey any such connotation. The word Desiya means ‘national’ Deiveega means ‘divine/pure/noble’ Murpokku means ‘progressive’ and a Kazhagam connotes a ‘body’ or an ‘association’.
7. The petitioner challenges the conclusion of the respondent by reading in a religious connotation, that is neither express nor implied in the proposed name. In fact, according to the petitioner, the proposed name fortifies the element of secularism which is enshrined in the Constitution and it is in this context that the word ‘Deiveega’ should be understood.
8. Incidentally it is also pointed out that no opportunity has been granted to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order and there is thus, violation of principles of natural justice as well. Section 29A (7) provides for such opportunity, which has been denied in this case.
9. Since both learned counsel have been heard in detail on the merits of the matter, it does not seem appropriate that the matter be remanded to R1 mearly to correct the procedural violation of lack of opportunity and hence while observing that there has indeed been such violation committed in this case, I proceed to decide the matter on the legal and larger question that presents itself.
10. Section 29A of the Act reads thus:
(1) Any association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself a political party and intending to avail itself of the provisions of this Part shall make an application to the Election Commission for its registration as a political party for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Every such application shall be made:
(a) if the association or body is in existence at the commencement of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1988 (1 of 1989), within sixty days next following such commencement.
(b) if the association or body is formed after such commencement, within thirty days next following the date of its formation.
(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be signed by the chief executive officer of the association or body (whether such chief executive officer is known as Secretary or by any other designation) and present
AI
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.
Election - Registration with Election Commission of associations and bodies as political parties - Conditions for recognition as a State party - At time when petitioner sought registration as a polit....
The Election Commission lacks authority to deregister a political party unless specific exceptions apply, as established in prior case law.
The Election Commission's decisions regarding political party registration and recognition are not subject to arbitrary challenge, and the petitioner failed to prove any legal basis for deregistratio....
The Election Commission possesses lawful authority to enforce the Symbols Order, 1968, establishing differentiation in political party recognition and privileges as not arbitrary, supporting electora....
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 Election Commission lacks authority to deregister political parties for inactivity without explicit legal provisions supporting such actions.
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
