Judicial intervention in electoral matters, specifically regarding the freezing of election symbols during ongoing elections, must adhere to legal protocols, ensuring electoral integrity and fairness.

ORDER :

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

M/s.Pattali Makkal Katchi, rep. By its Founder and present President Dr.S.Ramadoss, has filed this Civil Revision Petition, as against the fair and decreetal order dated 26.03.2026 made in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in O.S.No.664 of 2026 on the file of learned XIII City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The learned Trial Judge, by order dated 26.03.2026, passed the impugned order in I.A.No.11 of 2026 and I.A.No.12 of 2026 in O.S.No.664 of 2026, held that plaintiff has failed to satisfy the prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and irreparable injury would be caused to him if the reliefs sought are declined at this stage, while arriving at such a decision, this court also take note of the fact that the plaintiff, in these petitions, seek for freezing of the ‘Symbol’ and staying of the allotment of the ‘Symbol’ to the plaintiff’s party himself; on the contrary, any interference at this juncture would have the effect of disrupting the ongoing election process, which this Court is not inclined to do. Further, the learned Trial Judge observed that “if permissible in law, it is open to the plaintiff to approach the Election Commission of India by way of an appropriate representation. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of such representation, and it is for the said authority to consider the same, so made, strictly in accordance with law.”

3. The learned Trial Judge further observed in result portion as under:-

“(c) It is open to the plaintiff to approach the Election Commission of India to seek for revocation of Concession, If it is legally permissible, since it is the exclusive domain of the Election Commission of India.”

4. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order is as under:-

(i) The learned Civil Court failed to appreciate that the limited relief sought by the petitioner was only to prevent voter confusion and to ensure a level playing field during the electoral process, and did not entail adjudication of inter se rights of the rival factions of the political party.

(ii) The learned Civil Court has gravely erred in law in treating the present dispute as one confined to inter se rights of rival factions within a political party, without appreciating that the issue raised transcends a purely private dispute and squarely falls within the domain of public law. The dispute, in substance, relates to the use and operation of an election symbol during an ongoing electoral process, which is an integral component of the statutory election machinery regulated by the Election Commission of India under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, read with Article 324 of the Constitution of India .

(iii) The learned Civil Court failed to appreciate that election symbols are not merely internal party insignia, but constitute a critical instrument of electoral identification for voters, particularly in a system where a significant portion of the electorate relies upon symbols to identify candidates and political parties. The use of a common symbol by rival factions during the pendency of a leadership dispute has a direct and substantial bearing on voter perception, electoral choice, and the overall fairness of the electoral process. The impugned order, by erroneously characterising the dispute as a private intra-party disagreement, has overlooked the wider constitutional and statutory ramifications of the issue, including the potential for voter confusion, misrepresentation and distortion of electoral outcomes.

(iv) The learned Civil Court has failed to appreciate that under Artic