LexEDAPADDI K. PALANISWAMI versus DHINAKARAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. EDAPADDI K. PALANISWAMI v. T.T.V. DHINAKARAN & ORS. (M.A. No. 31) in (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7258 of 2018) FEBRUARY 07, 2019 [A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.] Election Laws – Use of name/symbol of political party, when each faction of registered recognised State political party claimed to be real party and such a dispute is sub judice before the High Court – In the instant case, Election Commission of India (ECI) had accepted the claim of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the SLP petitioner- EKP that the group led by respondent No.4-EM was entitled to use the name of the original registered and recognized state political party and rejected the claim of respondent No.1 and respondent No.3-VKS that the group led by VKS was the real group and was entitled to use name and symbol of the party AIADMK – Writ petition filed by respondent No.1 before the High Court to assail the decision of the ECI – The said writ petition is still pending – Meanwhile, as elections in the State of Tamil Nadu were announced, respondent No.1 and the group of which he was a member moved an interim application before the High Court in the pending writ petition for permission to use a suitable name for carrying out its political activities – High Court allowed the same by order dated 9th March, 2018 – Aggrieved by the said decision, the SLP petitioner-EKP espousing the cause of the group led by EM, filed SLP – When the SLP, along with connected cases, was taken up for hearing on 28th March, 2018, amongst others, it was pointed out to the Court that the impending elections to the local bodies were countermanded and as a result, the basis for instituting the interim application by respondent No.1 did not exist – In that view of the matter, the interim order passed by the High Court was kept in abeyance with the directions that the ECI shall not pronounce its order and granted liberty to the parties to approach this court in case of any notification [2019] 3 S.C.R. 200 200 A B C D E F G H 201 for an election – Accordingly the SLP was disposed of – Respondent No.1 filed the instant Application asserting that the bye-election was notified by the ECI on 31st December, 2018 and the date of polling was fixed for 28th January, 2019 – SLP petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6, as well as respondent No.2, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this application – Held: Respondent No.1 had no other option but to present the instant application because of the publication of the election schedule by the ECI, in light of the liberty given by this Court by order dated 28th March, 2018 – As liberty was given to the parties even though the SLPs were ostensibly disposed of, not entertaining this application, only because the order dated 28th March, 2018 records that SLPs are disposed of, would be completely trivializing the spirit of the liberty given to the parties by this Court in the peculiar fact situation – Respondent No.1 cannot be directed to go back to the High Court for the relief claimed in this application because similar relief was already considered by the Single Judge of the High Court on 9th March, 2018 in favour of the group represented by the applicant – The directions given by the Single Judge in the said order had not been independently challenged by the ECI by filing SLP before this Court – Besides, it may not be appropriate for the Division Bench to re-visit the matters in issue dealt with in the judgment and interim order passed by the Single Judge dated 9th March, 2018, which was kept in abeyance by this Court – No merit in the preliminary objection raised by the SLP petitioner, respondent Nos.4 to 6 and respondent No.2. Election Laws – Whether a faction represented by respondent no.1-TTVD and VKS which claims to be the real party having support of majority of the members at the time of initiation of the dispute before the ECI and that claim was still pending consideration before the High Court ought to be compelled to first register itself as a political party and after following the process of obtaining recognition could only then set up its claim for allotment of a reserved symbol and use of name – Held: During the pendency of the writ petition, as elections in the State of Tamil Nadu were announced and respondent No.1 and the group of which he was a member, wanted to contest the elections, they moved an interim application before the High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.