LexKANHIYALAL OMAR versus R.K. TRIVEDI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)· 1 V• R.K. mIVEDI & ORS. SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 [E.S. VENKATARAML\H AND R.B. MISRA,JJ. j Constitution of India 1950 - Articles 324 and 327 Represen- tation of People Act 1951, Section 169 Conduct of Election Rules 1961, Rules 5 and 10 & Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. A B Symbols Order - Whether legislative in character - Election c Colllllission whether competent to issue Order. Words & Phrases : 'Superintendence, direction and control' - Meaning of - Article 324 (1) Constitution of India 1950. D The petitioner in his Writ Petition to this Court ., challenged the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 contending that as it is legislative in character it could not have been issued by the Election Coumission because the Coumission is not entrusted by law the power to issue such an E Order regarding the specification, reservation and allotment of symbols that may be chosen by . the candidates at elections in parliamentary and assembly constituencies, and that there is no provision, constitutional or legal which justifies the . recognition of political parties for the purposes of election. It ~ wss further contended that Article 324 of the Constitution which vests the power of superintendence, direction and control of sll F elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of a State in the Election Coumission cannot be construed as conferring power on the Coumission to issue the Symbols Order, and the Central Government which had been delegated the power to make rules under Section 169 of the Representation of People Act,. 1951 could 110t further delegate the power to make any subordinate legislation in G the form of the Symbols Order to the Coumission, without itself 4 being empowered by the Act to make such further delegation. Dismissing the Writ Petition, 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.3. s.c.R. •. A llELll: 1. In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with rule 5 and rule 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 the Election Commission of India issued the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order in the year 1968 for the specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols, for the recognition of political parties in B relation thereto and for matters connected therewith. (15 C-il] 2. It cannot be said that any of the provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 suffers from want of authority on the part of the Election Comnission which has issued it. [16 F] c 3. The power of the Election Commission to recognise political parties and to decide disputes arising amongst them or between splinter groups within a political party has been upheld ... in Sadiq Ali v• Election ~ssion of India, [1972] 2 s.c.R. 318. It also upholds the power of the Commission to issue the Symbols Order and the power to issue the Symbols Order was held to be comprehended in the ppwer of 'superintendence, direction D and control' of elections vested in the Election Commission. [llG; 14A] 4. Even if the powers of the Election Gomnission mentioned in the Symbols Order are not traceable to the Representation of People Act, 1951 or the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 the power E of the Colllllission under Article 324(1) of the Constitution which are plenary in chracter would encompass all such provisions. Article 324 of the Constitution operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation and the words 'superintendence' 'direction', and 'control' as well as 'conduct of all elections' are the broadest terms which would include the power to make · all F such provisions. While cona truing the expression 'superinten- dence, direction and control' in Article 324(1), one has to remember that every norm which lays down a rule of conduct cannot possibly be elevated to the position of legislation or delegated legislation. There are some authorities or persons in certain grey areas who may be sources of rules of conduct and who at the G same time cannot be equated to authorities or persons who can make law, in the strict sense in which it is understood in jurisprudence. A direction may mean an Order issued to a parti- cular individual or a precept which many may have to follow. It may be a specific or a general order. The so~cce of power in this case is the Constitution, the highest law of the land, which is H the repository and sou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.