IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.6719 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.7297 of 2026 M/s.Pattali Makkal Katchi Rep. by its Founder and present President Dr.S.Ramadoss, A registered and Unrecognized Political Party, No.63, Nattu Muthu Naickan Street, Vanniyar Teynampet, Chennai Petitioner Vs

1.The Election Commission of India Election Commission, Nirvachan Bhavan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001

2.The Chief Electoral Officer, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009 Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to “Freeze the symbol Mango” of the party as per the petition for freezing dated 05.02.2026 submitted with the office of the 1st respondent as acknowledged on 06.02.2026 as there is an internal dispute and split in the party till the resolution of rival claim of internal dispute over the President position of the petitioners party by a civil suit O.S.No.664 of 2026.

For Petitioner: Mr. K.Arul For Respondents: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to freeze the Mango symbol of the party, as per the petition for freezing dated 5.2.2026 submitted with the office of the first respondent, as acknowledged on 6.2.2026, as there is an internal dispute and split in the party, till the resolution of rival claim of internal dispute over the President position of the petitioner’s party by a civil suit in O.S.No.664 of 2026 pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on advance copy, would raise an objection to the very maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that such petition seeking freezing of symbol is not maintainable. Referring to the order dated 4.12.2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.18311 of 2025, he would submit that it has been clearly recorded that the Madras High Court has already given a categorical finding that such a private dispute as the present one with regard to rival claims, especially between a father and son, shall not be entertained by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that such disputes ought to be raised before the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

He would submit that, after taking into consideration the aforesaid order and the stand taken and the submission made by the Election Commission of India, as recorded in paragraph 36 of the order, it has been held that the Election Commission of India has no power or jurisdiction to give any finding as regards internal disputes emanating from rival sections within an unrecognized political party, as in the case of the petitioner political party. It has further been observed in the order that the Election Commission of India, as such, shall not recognize or de-recognize any rival faction or any claims that may be raised by any rival faction.

He would further submit that now the matter has been brought by the petitioner to the civil court by filing a suit and the matter is pending consideration.

4. The prayer made in the writ petition that the symbol should be freezed probably for the reason that there is a dispute between two warring factions in the same group/party essentially requires the writ court to go into rival claims which are otherwise pending consideration before the civil court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he has not approached the Apex Court against the order passed by the Delhi High Court.

6. If that be so, the order of the Delhi High Court binds the petitioner and all the parties, unless the same is intervened in any other appropriately constituted proceedings.

7. In that view of the matter, we do not thin