IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8664 of 2011 RUBI DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 19.05.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the State Election Commission. Learned Counsel submits that there were two candidates by the name of Rubi Devi. There should have been a different identification for both by numerical as was done in the case of two other candidates with similar names. Counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that the election symbols of both Rubi Devi were different and printed legibly in the ballot papers. The Court can do no better than quote paragraph 11 of the judgment reported in 1967 SC 898 (Samyukta Socialist Party Vs Election Commission of India) as follows: “11. ……….. These arguments require careful consideration because the importance of the symbols to our system of elections needs no exaggeration. Symbols are its very soul and without them the exercise of franchise by the majority of our citizens would be impossible. No doubt elections are fought on party lines but even if there is a plebiscite between the parties, the symbols play a key role by identifying the parties. Slogans, placards, appeals all invoke the symbols and not the candidates. In fact, the voters are asked to vote for this symbol or that symbol. The Election Commission can allot symbols as desired by parties and candidates but, in a case such as this, it has to decide who is to have which symbol without, of course, putting a hurdle in the way of any party.”. The rest is a matter for an election petition. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)