Election Symbol Dispute: Court Dismisses Petition.
In a recent Writ Petition filed by Naam Tamilar Katchi (hereinafter "Petitioner") against the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Respondent No. 2. The petition challenged the ECI's allotment of the "Ganna Kisan" election symbol to Respondent No. 2.
Background:
The Petitioner, an unrecognized political party, sought to invalidate the symbol allotment on the grounds that Explanation (iv) and Proviso(s) 1 to Paragraph 10B (B) of the Election Symbols Order violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Petitioner's Contentions:
The Petitioner argued that the aforementioned provisions of the Election Symbols Order were unconstitutional, presumably due to their alleged discriminatory nature in the symbol allotment process for unrecognized political parties.
Respondent's Contentions:
The ECI, represented by its standing counsel, defended the allotment as compliant with Paragraph 10B (B) of the Election Symbols Order, which establishes a "first-come-first-served" principle for free symbol allocation.
Court's Reasoning:
The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, citing the following:
- Petitioner's Knowledge: The Petitioner demonstrably possessed knowledge of the "first-come-first-served" principle governing free symbol allotment under Paragraph 10B (B).
- Prior Application: The Petitioner had previously availed itself of this principle by securing the "Ganna Kisan" symbol itself.
- Statutory Interpretation: The Court adopted a literal interpretation of Explanation (iv) and Proviso(s) 1 of Paragraph 10B (B), finding their language unambiguous and straightforward.
- Judicial Deference: The Court emphasized the principle of judicial restraint, declining to alter the statutory meaning of "same date" within Proviso 1 through judicial interpretation.
- Adequate Notice: The ECI's timely publication (on May 17th, 2023) of the application deadline (December 17th, 2023) ensured the Petitioner received sufficient notice.
- Inapplicability of Anant Raj Ltd.: The Court deemed the Petitioner's reliance on the Anant Raj Ltd. case misplaced. Unlike the instant case, Anant Raj Ltd. involved a lack of public notice, a factor absent here.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the symbol allotment to Respondent No. 2 adhered to the established "first-come-first-served" principle and was therefore neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1951