LexSUBRAMANIAN SWAMY versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 846 ~~ A SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY V. ELECTION COMMISSION OF !NOIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (Civil Appeal No. 5803 of 2008) ~ . B SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 [ASHOK BHAN AND V. S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, c 1968 - Clauses 1 DA, 5, 6, 6A, 68 and 6C - De-recognition of Political party as a recognized political party - Challenge to de-mcognition set aside right upto Supreme Court - In the meantime, by amendment of Symbols Order, Clause 10A in- serted providing for retention of its symbol by a de- D reorganiszed political party for six years as a grace period - .,, ~ Provision challenged as irrational, arbitrary and undemocratic - Election Commission as well as High Court setting aside the challenge and upholding Clause 1 OA - On appeal, held: The provision is not arbitrary, irrational or undemocratic - The E grace period of six years for retention of symbol is rational - Reading down the provision by ignoring the limit of six years is not permissible since the language of the provision is clear and since such reading down will lead to absurdity in the wake of Clauses 5 and 6 - In absence of challenge to clauses 5 and 6 also, challenge to Clause 1 OA fails - The symbol of a F political party cannot be treated as 'intellectual property' as it does not have the concept of monetary implications - Repre- sentation of People Act, 1951 - s. 29A- Interpretation of Stat- utes. G After de-recognition of 'Janata Party' as a recognized political party, it lost its reserved symbol. Appellant (presi- dent of the party) approached the Election Commission asking for continuance of the reservation of its symbol. The order of de-recognition was also challenged before H 846 SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v ELECTION COM. OF !NOIA 847 ). . ..J THROUGH ITS SECRETARY this Court by filing SLP. During the pendency thereof, Elec- A tion Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 was amended, whereby clause 10A was inserted which al- lowed a period of six years as a grace period to retain its ; I symbol, even after the party lost its status as a recognized party. Ultimately the SLP was dismissed in limine. B Appellant approached Election Commission com- plaining against clause 1 OA and proposed the amendment so as to enable the once recognized political parties of national or State level to retain their reserved symbols permanently. Election commission refused the proposal. c Appellant filed a writ petition, challenging Clause 10A as arbitrary. High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. .. '( Dismissing the appeal, the Court 0 HELD: 1. Theory of continuance and permanent res- ervation of a particular symbol for a particular political party cannot stand on the ground that after passing of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the concept of recognition of a political party and E the concept of a reserved symbol for that party must be treated to have amalgamated. [Para 17] [866-E] 2. There is no irrationality or arbitrariness in provid- ing six years time as an additional period for retaining the F exclusive symbol for the simple reason that within that period there is bound to be one or more general elections on the national level. So also, if any political party has lost its status in the State Elections, apart from the fact that upto the next general elections, it will not lose the said symbol, there is bound to be another opportunity by way G of fresh elections within six years. It is on this rationale that the period of six years is provided. This is apart from the fact that in case of Janata Party it continued to have and enjoyed the status of said national or State party for the purposes of next general elections due to the saving H 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 13 S.C.R. A clause vide clause 7. [Para 17] [866 A-C] 3. In absence of any challenge to the constitutional validity of clauses 5 and 6, the challenge to Clause 1 OA must necessarily fail. Reading these clauses together it becomes very clear that firstly the reserved symbol is 8 meant only for recognized political party for its exclusive user. Again the second inference which comes out of such conjoint reading of two provisions is that if a particular sym- bol is not a reserved symbol, meaning thereby that it is not meant for a recognized political party, such symbol auto- C matically become a free symbol. There is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.