LexDESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM & ANR. versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 3 S.C.R. 1084 DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM & ANR. v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (C) No. 532 of 2008) APRIL 18, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, c 1968: Clauses 6A and 68 as inserted by Notification No. 56 dated 1.12.2000 - Political parties - Reservation/allocation of symbols - Criterion for recognition of political parties at 0 State level and National level - Constitutional validity of - Held: Per majority (Chelameswar, J - dissenting): In addition torr. 5 and 10 of Conduct of Election Rules, the powers vested in the Election Commission can be traced to Art. 324 of the Constitution - The Election Commission has set down a bench-mark which is not unreasonable - In order to gain E recognition as a political party, a party has to prove itself and to establish its credibility as a serious player in the political arena of the State - Once it succeeds in doing so, it will become entitled to all the benefits of recognition, including the allotment of a common symbol - A voter has the right to F know the antecedents of the candidates, but such right has to be balanced with the ground realities of conducting a State- wide poll - The Election· Commission has kept the said balance in mind while setting the bench-marks to be achieved by a political party in order to be recognized as a State Party G and become eligible to be given a common election symbol - There is no variance between the views expressed by the Constitution Bench in the PUCL * case and the amendments effected by the Election Commission to the Election Symbols Order, 1968, by its Notification dated 1.12.2000- Nothing new H 1084 DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM v. ELECTION1085 COMMISSION OF INDIA has been brought out on behalf of the petitioners which could A make the Court take a different view from what has been decided earlier - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - rr. 5 and 10 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 324. B The instant writ petitions and special leave petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, by Notification No.O.N.56/2000/ Jud-111 dated 1.12.2000, substituting Clause 6 with 6A(i) C anr:I (ii) and Clause 68 therein. The common grievance in all the petitions was with regard to the amendment which required that in order to be recognized as a State party in the State, a political party should have secured not less than 6% of the total valid votes polled in the State and also returned at least 2 members to the Legislative D Assembly of the State in the last general election. It was contended that the classification of parties into recognized and unrecognized parties on the basis of the seats won during an election and the percentage of votes E polled, was unreasonable and arbitrary, having no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: Per Altamas Kabir, J (for himself and for Surinder Singh Nijjar, J). F 1.1. The Election Commission constituted under Art. 324 of the Constitution of India evolved the procedure for G grant of recognition to political parties. After the First General Election, it fixed 3% of the valid votes polled in the elections as the m.inimum standard for grant of recognition. After the Third General election the minimum standard was raised by the Commission from 3 to 4%. H 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A After the Fourth General Election were held in 1967, the Election Commission decided to streamline the provisions and procedure. Accordingly, by virtue of powers conferred on it by Art. 324 of the Constitution, read with s.29A of the Representation of the People Act, B 1951 and rr. 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and other powers vested in it, the Election Commission of India made and promulgated the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. [para 5-6] [1099-G; 1100-D-H; 1101-8-C] c 1.2. The grounds made on behalf of the writ petitioners regarding the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, and the power of the Election Commission to settle issues relating to claims of splinter groups to be the original party, had fallen for D the decision of this Court in Sadiq Ali's* c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.