SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
Sadiq Ali and another, Appellants
Versus
The Election Commission of India, New Delhi and others, Respondents. P. Kakkan, Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1971 and Civil Appeals Nos. 2122 to 2124 of 1970, D/- 11-11-1971.
Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1971
Advocates appeared
Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. K. C. Sharma, Y. K. Mathew and V. P. Chaudhry, Advocates, with him), for Appellants.
In C. A. No. 70 of 1971
Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate (for No. 1) and Mr. K. L. Mishra, Sr. Advocate (M/s. A. R. Mishra, Naunit Lal, V. P. Nanda, Janak Raj, Miss Swaranjit Sodhi and Mr. R. K. Shukla, Advocates with him) (for No. 2); Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (Bawa Shiv Charan, M/s. K. S. Suri, O. P. Sharma and Miss Kailash Metha, Advocates, with him) (for No. 3); M/s. P. N. Lekhi, M. K. Garg and V. C. Prashar, Advocates, (for No. 4); Mr. Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. S. L. Bhargava and V. C. Prashar, Advocates, with him), (for No. 5), for Respondents.
Respondent No. 6 in person, (In C. A. No. 70 of 1971).
Mr. M. Natesan, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. T. L. Garg and R. Gopalakrishan 189 Advocates with him), for Intervener, (In C. A. No. 70 of 1971) and the Appellants (In C. As. Nos. 2122 to 2124 of 1970).
Mr. R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (In C. As. Nos. 2122 and 2123 of 1970) and Respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 2124 of 1970).
-held, it cannot therefore be said that when Commission issues directions these are done not on its own behalf but as delegate of some other authority.
-held, Article 327, is qualified in the opening by the words ‘subject to the provisions of this constitution’. Laws made by Parliament in exercise of powers under Article 327 are therefore subject to other provisions of Constitution including Article 324 which provides that superintendence, direction, and control of elections shall vest in Election Commission. When therefore the Commission issues directions, it cannot be held that it does so not on its own behalf but as the delegate of some other authority. As Central Govt. issued conduct of election Rules, 1961 in exercise of its own power as conferred by Section 69 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and after consultation with the Commission.
-see decision in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, AIR 1972 SC 187=(1972) 2 SCJ 256.
Judgment
KHANNA, J.:- Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1971 has been filed by special leave by special leave by Shri Sadiq Ali and another against the order of the Election Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) under paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Symbols Order ), whereby the Commission held that for the purpose of allotment of symbol in elections the political party presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram was the Indian National Congress and was entitled to the symbol of "Two Bullocks with Yoke on", reserved for the said Congress.
2. Indian National Congress (hereinafter referred to as the Congress ) is a recognised National Party under the Symbols Order. The symbol of the "Two Bullocks with Yoke on" was exclusively reserved for the Congress for the purpose of elections to the Houses of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the States and Union Territories. The Congress is a voluntary association; it is neither a statutory body nor a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It has framed its own constitution and rules. Shri S. Nijalingappa was elected President of the Congress with effect from1st January, 1968 for a period of two years. Dr. Zakir Hussain, President of India, died in 1969. Split then took place in the Congress Party following differences over the choice of Congress nominee for the office of the President of India. Each group claimed to represent the Congress Party. One of the groups elected Shri C. Subramaiam as the President of the Congress. Subsequently, Shri Jagjivan Ram was elected President by this group in place of Shri Subramaniam. For sake of convenience this group would hereafter be referred to as Congress J . Shri Nijalingappa continued to be the President of the party represented by the other group which would hereafter be referred to as Congress O .
3. On 21st December, 1969, Shri Subramaniam claiming to be the President of the Congress, addressed a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner stating that there had been a change in the office-bearers of the Congress. Enclosed with the letter was the list of office-bearers of Congress J Party and it was stated that they were the office-bearers of the Congress. There was then some exchange of correspondence between the Commission and Congress J Party. On 3rd January, 1970, a communication was addressed to the Election Commission on behalf of the Congress J that Shri Jagjivan Ram had been duly elected as President of the Congress and had taken charge on December 25, 1969, during the plenary Session held at Bombay.
4. On 8th January, 1970, a letter was sent on behalf of the Commission to the Secretary of Congress O . Enclosed with that letter was a copy of the letter of Shri Subramaniam dated 21-12-1969. The Congress O was asked to make its comments so as to enable the Commission to take decision in the matter after hearing both parties. On 14th January, 1970, a reply was sent on behalf of Congress O by its General Secretary Shri Sadiq Ali. In that reply it was stated that Shri Subramaniam who had styled himself as the President of the Congress was, in fact, not its President and that the duly elected President of the Congress was Shri Nijalingappa. It was also stated that the office-bearers mentioned by Shri Subramaniam including Shri Subramaniam himself, were persons expelled from the Congress and had otherwise ceased to be the members of the Congress. Further, according to the letter of Shri Sadiq Ali, the Commission should not have entertained any communication from a group of people who had formed a new party and were masquerading themselves in the name and style of the Congress. This association of persons, added Shri Sadiq Ali, was neither a splinter group nor a rival section of the Commission to enquire into the matter was also questioned.
5. On 15th January, 1970, a communication was addressed by the Commission to the Secreta
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.