Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, J
Janata Party Rep. by its National General Secretary Shree Manoj Ramachandra Iyer – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Election Officer Tamil Nadu State Election Commission – Respondent
W.P.No.14012 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.15270 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Shanmuga Boopathi, For M/s.S.Ramesh
For the Respondent(s): Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for R1 & R2

Dismissal of writ for lack of evidence proving political party recognition and symbol allotment.

Headnote:The petitioner, a political party claiming recognition since 1977, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Chief Election Officer to consider its representation regarding the third respondent's use of a deceptively similar election symbol "chakra-haldhar". The court noted the absence of documents proving recognition or symbol allotment. Respondents opposed, citing prior Supreme Court ruling. The writ petition lacked merit and was dismissed, with no costs ordered. Issue framed: Direction to consider representation on symbol similarity. Ratio: No evidence submitted to substantiate claim of recognised party status or symbol allotment; prior Supreme Court decision binding. Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner claims party recognition and symbol infringement. (Para 2)
2. respondents highlight lack of evidence and prior ruling. (Para 3)
3. petition dismissed for want of merit. (Para 4)

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of Indiaseeking a direction to first respondent to consider and dispose of petitioner’s representation dated 22.03.2026.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a recognised political party formed in the year 1977. He further submits that symbol “chakra-haldhar” has been consistently and prominently used in various elections, including the Vidhan Sabha elections conducted in different parts of the country. It has come to their knowledge that third respondent is using a symbol which is identical or deceptively similar. Therefore, the Election Commission of India, which is the authority empowered to allot symbols, may be directed to consider their representation and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 opposes the prayer and submitted that no documents whatsoever have been placed on record to show that petitioner is a recognised party and was allotted the symbol in question. He further pointed out that this issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India ¹

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(2008) 14 SCC 318

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33244

Dismissal of writ for lack of evidence proving political party recognition and symbol allotment.

Cases Referred (1)