UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH & ORS. versus JAMMU AND KASHMIR NATIONAL CONFERENCE & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 06-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 17 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 68 : 2023 INSC 804
CASE DETAILS
UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH & ORS.
v.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR NATIONAL CONFERENCE & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5707 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court whether justifi ed in dismissing the 
appeal fi led by appellants and upholding the interim order of Single Judge 
directing them to notify the symbol allotted to Respondent no.1 (R1) and 
allow the candidates set up by it to contest in the then-upcoming General 
Elections of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil on 
the reserved election symbol (plough) already allotted to it.
Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 – 
Paragraphs 9, 10, 10(A), 12 – Denial of the Plough symbol to respondent 
no.1 – Impropriety:
Held: R1 was before the concerned authorities, well in time, by 
impugning the Notifi cation dtd. 26.07.2023 which denied it the Plough 
symbol – Appellants sitting on the representation of R1, went ahead and 
notifi ed the elections on 02/05.08.2023 – R1’s request for allotment of the 
Plough symbol was bonafi de, legitimate and just, because in the erstwhile 
State of Jammu and Kashmir (which included the present Union Territory 
of Ladakh), it was a recognized State Party having been allotted the Plough 
symbol – Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of J&K and the creation 
of two new Union Territories, the Union Territory of J&K and the Union 
Territory of Ladakh, though the ECI had not notifi ed R1 as a State Party 
for the Union Territory of Ladakh, it cannot be simpliciter that R1 was not 
entitled for the allotment of plough symbol – Also, there was no confl ict 
with any other stakeholder as the Plough symbol was neither a symbol 
exclusively allotted to any National or State Party nor one of the symbols 
shown in the list of free symbols – Thus, there was and is no impediment in 
68
69
UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH v. JAMMU AND 
KASHMIR NATIONAL CONFERENCE
such symbol being granted to R1 – In the absence of anything contrary in any 
rule framed for conduct of the elections in question, relating to allotment of 
symbols, the provisions of the 1968 Order can be relied upon as a guideline 
to exercise of executive power of like nature – On a harmonious reading 
of Paragraphs 9, 10, 10(A) and 12, under the terms of the 1968 Order, the 
request of R1 is not bereft of justifi cation – In view of the 1968 Order, the 
appellants’ discretion was not unbridled, rather, it was guided by the 1968 
Order – R1 is entitled to the exclusive allotment of the Plough symbol for 
candidates proposed to be put up by it – Orders of the High Court were in 
aid of the electoral process, no fault therewith – Entire election process set 
aside – Fresh Notifi cation be issued – Appeal dismissed with costs – Ladakh 
Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1997 – ss.12, 13 – Constitution 
of India – Article 226 – Election Laws. [Paras 21, 23, 27-30, 37, 40 and 44]
Constitution of India – Powers of Supreme Court and High Courts, 
part of Basic Structure:
Held: Powers of Supreme Court and the High Courts vested under 
the Constitution cannot be abridged, excluded or taken away, being part of 
the Basic Structure of the Constitution. [Para 16]
Alternative remedy – No bar for exercise of writ jurisdiction – 
Ladakh Autonomous Hill Devel-opment Councils Act, 1997 – s.13:
Held: The availability of alternative effi  cacious remedy is no bar to 
the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction – s.13, 1997 Act does not, 
and cannot, impede a Constitutional Court from proceeding further – High 
Court was not precluded from issuing a direction of the nature issued by 
it, more so when such direction does not violate any statutory provision – 
Constitution of India – Election Laws. [Para 16]
Practice and Procedure – Inter-departmental communications – 
Reliance upon:
Held: Inter-departmental communications are in the process of 
consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis 
to claim any right – In the present case, it was rightly contended that the 
Legal Opinion by the Law Department remains internal advice, and advice 
alone, and the same would not create/confer any right in favour of R1 – 
Elections – Administrative Law. [Para 17]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
70
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Power to direct for actions, 
in rare and exceptional situation, not mentioned in the provisions 
concerne

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.