The Election Commission possesses lawful authority to enforce the Symbols Order, 1968, establishing differentiation in political party recognition and privileges as not arbitrary, supporting electoral integrity.

JUDGMENT

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a political party who allegedly claims to be registered with the respondent no.2 - Election Commission of India, vide Registration Certificate dated 31^st October 2018, bearing Registration No.56/187/2018-18PPS-1. The prayers in the petition read thus:-

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ or direction or declaration to the effect that the Election Commission of India has no power or jurisdiction to frame the impugned The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

(b) Issue an appropriate writ or direction striking down the impugned The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968;

(c) Issue an appropriate writ or direction quashing the paragraphs 5(2), 6-A, 6-B and 6-C of The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968;

(d) Issue an appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Election Commission of India from enforcing the provisions contained in paragraphs 5(2), 6A, 68 and 6C of The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968;

(e) Issue an appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondents from enforcing any provision relating to a political party under the provisions of the Representation of People Act ,1951 till a valid rule is framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 169 (1) of the said Act;

(f) Issue any other writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to do complete justice in the case.

(g) Allow the petition with cost.”

2. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as under:-

a. The petitioner is claiming to be a juristic entity based on its registration with respondent no.2- Election Commission of India. Allegations of the petitioner party are that it intended to sponsor candidates in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the last elections, which were held in the year 2024, and has tried to urge that it has approached this Court alleging discrimination at every stage of election.

b. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 has illegally recognized the political parties at National or State level, who are granted privilege of availing special rights and facilities under the statutory provisions of Representation of People Act , 1951 (for the sake of brevity to be referred as ‘the RP Act, 1951’).

c. It is the case of the petitioner that for the first time, law was enacted to restrict defection of MPs and MLAs from their parent political parties i.e. the party on whose sponsorship, they were elected to their respective seats. According to petitioner, by way of 52^nd Amendment in the year 1985 by adding 10^th Schedule to the Constitution of India, for the first time, the provision of disqualification for Anti Defection came to be introduced w.e.f.

June 15, 1985.

d. According to the petitioner, under the Act no. 1 of 1989, conditions are laid down for registration of political parties.

e. It is the case pleaded by petitioner that pursuant to Section 169 of the RP Act 1951, the Central Government, in consultation with the E