The Election Commission lacks authority to deregister political parties for inactivity without explicit legal provisions supporting such actions.

1. The petitioners are political parties registered under S.29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has been in existence for the past few years. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order No.F.No.56 / Delisting / 2025 / PPS - III issued by the Election Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'ECI' for short) removing them from the list of Registered Political Parties and marking them as "DELISTED RUPPs" in the register of Registered Unrecognised Political Parties ('RUPP' for short) maintained by the ECI.

2. Heard Senior Advocates T. Krishnanunni, Jaju Babu, E. K. Nandakumar along with Adv. Ajith G. Anjarlekar for the petitioners, Adv. M. Ajay for the Election Commission of India and Adv.Deepu Lal Mohan for the State Election Commission.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners put forth the following common contentions;

4. The failure of a political party to contest in the Lok Sabha or Assembly elections for a consecutive period of six years is not a ground for de - listing that party. Neither S.29A nor any other provision in the Act empowers the Election Commission to de - list / deregister a political party. The law on the point is laid down by the Apex Court in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and Others ( (2002) 5 SCC 685 ). In spite of the Indian National Congress (I) (supra) being brought to the notice of the Chief Electoral Officer, in the replies submitted to the show cause notices, the impugned order was passed by the ECI without reference to the binding precedent. Following the decision of the Apex Court, the Delhi High Court in Govind Yadav v. Union of India and Others (2024 SCC OnLine Del. 6016) and Pravendra Pratap Singh National President (Bahujan Mukti Party) v. Election Commission of India through its Principal Secretary and Another (2025 SCC OnLine Del. 619) has held that S.29A of the Act does not confer upon the ECI any supervisory jurisdiction to review whether the party adheres to its constitution and / or to scrutinise the conformity of its internal elections within its constitutional provisions. The fact that the petitioners did not contest in the Parliament or Assembly elections for six years is of no avail, since the dynamics of coalition politics in the State may require the constituent parties to refrain from contesting in the elections. Moreover, the members of the petitioners had contested in the last election to the local bodies, which is indicative of the fact that the petitioners are political parties active within the State. The Guidelines for Registration of the Political Parties issued by the Election Commission under S.29A(6) of the Act has no statutory force and cannot be made the basis for de - listing of registered political parties. The constitution of the petitioners do not contain a clause that if the party fails to contest elections continuously for six years, it can be taken off the list of registered parties. The show cause notice was issued and enquiry conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer, Government of Kerala, whereas the impugned order is passed by the ECI based on that enquiry. As such, the fundamental principle that the authority who heard the parties should itself pass the order is violated. The contention that the order is the result of an institutional hearing is also not available to the respondents, the ECI and the Chief Electoral Officer of the State being differe