RAMASHANKAR KAUSHIK AND ANOTHER versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 14-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.8 
D 
E 
. . F 
c 
RAMASHANKAR KAUSHIK AND AJ.'lOTHER . 
v. 
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
Nopember 14, 1973 
[P. ] AGAN.MOHAN. R EOIJY AND s. N. D W!VEDI, JJ.] 
265 
Election Symbols (Resen·ation and Allotmem) Order 1968 p<Uas 15, 16 
•nd IS-Scope oj. 
' 
' 
The PSP nnd SSP were national parties with the election symbols 'H ut' and 
1'ree', mpccttvel~. In May, 1971 there .w~ a. merger of the two 
parti~ and 
lhe 'Uwted Party was known a.s the Soctahst Party. The Ei<ction Commission 
.. ~ informed t~bout the merge~. ~md the Chte( Election Commissioner, in Nov-
ember, 1971, held th~t the Soetah.st Party w:u a National Party for the purposes 
of the Election 1>'ymbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and that the 
symbol 'Tree' s~ould be exc)usivdy r!'Scrwd a!"d allotted to it. Thereafter, the 
•pJ?<IIant ~d btS group .dectded to dtssolve thiS unity and they rcque.t.cd the 
Chief Elccuon CommtSSJOncr to hold thnt tl1er~ was a rttbinlt of the Socialist 
Party to be called the SSP and tbut the 'Tree' symbol may be allotted to the 
uborn SSP. The Socialist Party opposed this roque~!. The Chic( 
Election 
Commissioner, nftcr considering· the matter, held that the appellant's party now 
caWng itself SSP could not be the old SSP but was a new party, and 
th.•t the 
"'"' SSP could not claim t~ 'Tree' S)'mbol for itself. In pu~uance of the 
findings, he issued a notilic;uion, under parn~aph 17 of 1968-0rdcr, mentioning 
llle Socialist !'arty a.s a N ational Party with "Tree' a.s its symbol. 
In apptal to this Court it W:IS contended, (I) that the case was coven:J by 
J>M'JI:I"Ph IS of tlte 1968-0rdcr which dcnls with a. case where rival sect1ons of 
a rc:cogniscd political party cbim to be that {!Urty; (2) the ea.se fell within the 
>rope of rr. S and 10 of the Conduct of Elocuon Rules, 1961, and rar.~graph 1& 
ol the 196&-0rder, nnd (l} .._. the Chief Election Commissioner did oot bold 
any inquiry reg-Jrding the ;illegiance of the majority o( memben, bis order was 
•oid. 
Dismissing the appeal to 
this Court, 
HELD : (I) Paragraph IS of the Election Symbols ( R~ervatlon and Allot-
Jnent) Order. 1968, i' not ullracted to the facts of the prcs~nt case. [2750] 
. A new politic:.) party is formed by the fo/1111111 ro ~~~/r~r of at lc:\St ooe ~.og· 
ru~ed rolittcal party nnd another political pa ':fY· 
Tho J:!Cwly formed pohucal 
P>rty may npply for recognition to the Ekct10n Comnu"'!o'! under Parngr:~ph 
16 of lbe Order. After due hearing, tlte E lectlun Comouss10n mny recogniSe 
the newly fnrrncd political party either as n National Party .o~ a.s !1 Sf:atc. Party 
tnd nuy allot a symbol to it. The d~dsion of tbo Coolmt!<SIOD IS bmJmg on 
lhe D<YfiY fonntd rolitical party nnJ all rite co!"pon.-11!·' . units 
th~rto/. 'fhe 
"<Pr"'"on "joining together" in tho paragr;~ph .. used 10 •LS 
brood 
meantn~. 
Thetc i• nothing in the con(eKt to rc>trict its meanin.g I'? n case of 
merg~ r of 
•~o or more rolitical portk"' und their resultant exuncuon on the formation ?f 
a lltw politic;,! party. The u~ of the e~pn:ssion wall 
the 
comp?~ent un.•ts 
lhtrror . •how• th;~t it will nlso entbrace u ca<e of two or more pohtteal partt~' 
• &teeinll to form or federating into n new political p;trty while n:t.unin.s th<Jr 
'<f>'•te identui~. 
The upre,<ion 'joini.ng tl'cether' :t!<O ind•tJe. a th•:J tv~ 
~
1 
·~\e "·.h~re '"'O or moro political parttC'J, o(t.cr do:d.t!tng to dest.roy thetr sep.l-
c iolcnltu~. bave broul\hl into cxi.>tcnce a new pohttcal party, even though. the 
r OCN Of utin(.1ion wa~ not forma(Jy comph:tcd or Wa• invnliJ tln<l indle~lt\'C. 
Po 'Uch ~ t>\e. they retain their ,cparale iJentllic• and will be deemcJ to 1-c ,...,m-
' 11 tJ;"'"1 ~•ltr nl lilt new partv 
Tn the oeconJ anJ thirJ tYT'C\ or c:t~~ aho tvhen 
~~~lornmin lon bas gh•en r~cognitlon to the new formed politic:!! partv 
~:, t! 
bir~:t"•l Porty or a State Party 0 n,J has alloll«l o Aymhol to It, h" Oni~D-r 
~~50) 
'"I on them since they ore compon"'r units of the new p:trty. (274 
-
~Ire~~ the P•N:nt ca•e. the oppcll~nt't group did not claim the Social1~
1 to::r~ 
Y rc~&ni-.cd. ~ 
case set up by the nppenant's croup wa• 
a 
r 
f 
I 
I I l 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 J 2 s.c.R. 
Socialist Party had been dissolved and that a new Socialist party was 
r~born. 
Admittedly there are important differences between the reborn SSP and the 
Socialist Party recognised by the Chief ElectiOn Commass1oner. 
Their ftags, 
their constitutions aod their
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.