The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, that governs how electoral symbols are specified, reserved, and allotted to political parties and candidates in elections. The plea was dismissed on the grounds that it discriminates between recognised and unrecognised political parties and questions the Election Commission of India’s power to frame the order.
A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Anish Dayal said that the previous judgments of the Supreme Court have rejected similar petitions."We have dismissed the petition," the Court added. The order was passed on a plea by political party, Hind Samrajya Party, which approached the High Court challenging the constitutionality of the 1968 order.
It sought a declaration that the order is null and void and urged the court to restrain the Election Commission of India (ECI) from implementing its provisions. The petitioner argued that the 1968 Order was not framed by the Central Government under Section 169 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which empowers only the Union government, after consulting the ECI, to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
According to the plea, the Election Commission has no independent authority to frame rules enforcing the Act, rendering the Symbol Order without jurisdiction.The petitioner also challenged paragraphs 6A, 6B and 6C of the Symbol Order, which lay down criteria for granting national and state party status, arguing that these provisions are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The plea asserted that all registered political parties constitute a single class and that granting special rights and privileges, such as reserved symbols and procedural benefits, to recognised parties discriminates against newly registered parties.The petitioner also challenged paragraphs 6A, 6B and 6C of the Symbol Order, which lay down criteria for granting national and state party status, arguing that these provisions are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The plea asserted that all registered political parties constitute a single class and that granting special rights and privileges, such as reserved symbols and procedural benefits, to recognised parties discriminates against newly registered parties.It was further argued that the Election Commission does not have the power to independently frame rules, regulations, or provisions to implement the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that such authority rests solely with the Central Government.
The petitoner further went on to assail paragraphs 6A, 6B, and 6C of the Election Symbols Order, which prescribe the criteria for recognition as a national or state political party. It was argued that these provisions are arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
Follow us
