Delhi HC dismisses plea challenging symbol reservation for recognised Political Parties

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order of 1968. The petition, filed by the Janata Party, argued that the rule unfairly treated registered political parties differently from unregistered ones by reserving election symbols only for recognised parties.

The Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order of 1968 is a regulation that ensures recognised political parties are allotted symbols for parliamentary and assembly elections. The Janata Party, which once held the symbol of a plough, challenged the rule, claiming it was discriminatory and arbitrary. The party argued that this rule denied unrecognised parties the use of their previous symbols after losing recognition.

Legal History and Supreme Court verdict

The Delhi High Court pointed out that the issue had already been addressed by the Supreme Court in 2008. The Janata Party had filed a similar petition against the Election Commission of India (ECI), questioning the rules about the retention of symbols after a party loses recognition. In its verdict in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that election symbols are not the exclusive property of any party. The judgment also noted that a party could only retain its symbol for six years after it lost its recognised status.

The High Court explained that the matter had been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in a case titled Subramanian Swamy v Union of India in 2008. In this case, the Supreme Court had determined that symbols could not be considered a permanent property of a political party. The court stated that this issue had been settled and was no longer open for debate.

ALSO READ: BJP questions Arvind Kejriwal's income rise: ‘No other source explained'

ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi slams PM Modi and Kejriwal for failing to curb inflation at Delhi Rally

The Janata Party, once a major political force in India, argued that the 1968 order was unfair. The party had been recognised as a national political party, and its symbol was the plough, a significant symbol of rural India. However, the Election Commission had de-recognised the party in 2000 after it failed to meet the required percentage of votes in the 1996 general elections. After losing its national party status, the Janata Party could not retain its election symbol.

The Janata Party’s petition claimed that symbols were an essential part of a political party’s identity. The party believed that denying unrecognised parties the right to use their symbols after losing recognition was unreasonable. It argued that a symbol was part of a party’s "soul" and could not be taken away just because the party’s electoral performance was not up to the mark.

The Election Commission’s response

The Election Commission of India opposed the petition. It argued that the matter had already been settled by the Supreme Court, making the petition irrelevant. The Commission emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2008 made it clear that symbols could not be claimed as a party’s exclusive property. According to the Commission, there was no need for further examination of the issue.

The Election Commission, represented by advocate Siddhant Kumar, pointed out that the Court had already resolved the issue regarding the reservation and allotment of election symbols in its 2008 verdict. The Election Commission’s position was that the rules were in line with the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the petition has reaffirmed the legal position that election symbols are not the exclusive property of political parties. This ruling means that parties which lose their recognised status will not be able to retain their symbols indefinitely. The Court’s decision further clarifies that the Election Commission’s rules are consistent with the earlier Supreme Court judgment.

The Janata Party’s plea raised concerns about fairness in the allocation of symbols. However, the High Court and the Election Commission pointed to the Supreme Court’s authoritative decision, which has set a precedent in the matter. The ruling also upholds the idea that the allocation of election symbols is tied to a party’s status and electoral performance, rather than being a permanent right.

The Delhi High Court's decision reflects the legal stance on the reservation and allotment of election symbols. The petition by the Janata Party was rejected, and the court upheld the 2008 Supreme Court verdict that symbols are not the exclusive property of political parties. The ruling emphasizes that the Election Commission’s rules are valid and have been previously established as constitutional.

The case shows how legal matters related to election symbols continue to be shaped by the decisions of higher courts. The dismissal of this petition strengthens the interpretation of election laws and affirms the role of the Election Commission in regulating election symbols. The Janata Party’s challenge was ultimately unsuccessful, but the case provides insight into the ongoing legal debates about political party symbols in India.