Case: Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam  Vs. Election Commission Of India

in Rama Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India [(1993) 2 SCC 438] , while holding that creation of distinction between candidates of recognized parties and other candidates, though alleged to be artificial, inconsistent with the spirit of election law, discriminatory, giving important and special treatment to party system in democracy, was quite proper and that political parties constitute a class from other candidates and hence Articles 14, 19 and 21 were not violated in the facts of the case. It was also observed that the right to vote or to stand as a candidate and contest an election is not a fundamental right or even civil right, but a purely statutory right, as is the right to be elected. It was also urged that even the right to dispute an application was a statutory right emerging from the Representation of the People Act, 1951. According to Ms. Arora, outside the Statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. It was submitted that these rights were the creation of a Statute and were, therefore, subject to statutory limitations, as no fundamental right was involved.30. Ms. Arora submitted that the Election Symbols Order, 1968, concerns registered parties, recognised and non-recognised parties and independent candidates. Learned counsel urged that paragraph 2(h) of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, defines ‘political party’ to be an association of a body of individual citizens of India, registered with the Commission as a political party under Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which as mentioned herein earlier, deals with registration of association of bodies as political parties with the Election Commission. Ms. Arora submitted that since the provisions of paragraph 6A, 6B and 6C of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, have been held to be valid, they could not be departed from and the political party would, therefore, be bound by whatever amendments that may have been brought to the Election Symbols Order, 1968. Ms. Arora urged that although freedom of expression was a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the right to vote was a statutory right which could not be questioned by way of a Writ Petition so long as said right remained in the statute book.31. The submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners regarding the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, and the power of the Election Commission to settle issues relating to claims of splinter groups to be the original party, had fallen for the decision of this Court about forty years ago in Sadiq Ali’s case, when this Court had occasion to observe that the Election Commission had been clothed with plenary power by Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in the matter of conducting of elections, which included the power to allot symbols to candidates during elections. The challenge to the vires of the Symbols Order, 1968, was, accordingly, repelled.32. The view in Sadiq Ali’s case has since been followed in the All Party Hill Leaders’ Conference case (supra), Roop Lal Sathi’s case (supra), Kanhiya Lal Omar’s case (supra) and as recently as in Subramanian Swamy’s case (supra), to which reference has been made in the earlier part of this judgment, where the provisions of Article 324 of the Constitution vesting the superintendence, direction and control of elections, were considered in detail and it was, inter alia, held that in addition to Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the powers vested in the Election Commission could be traced to Article 324 of the Constitution.33. The evolution of the law relating to the criteria for a political party to be recognized as a State Party clearly indicates that the Election Commission, in its wisdom, was of the view that in order to be recognized as a political party, such party should have achieved a certain bench-mark in State politics. Nothing new has been brought out in the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners which could make us take a different view from what has been decided earlier. Mr. Venugopal’s submissions regarding political parties winning a larger number of seats while polling a lesser percentage of the votes, sounds attractive, but has to be discarded. Mr. Venugopal’s submissions are in relation to the poll performance of the larger parties within a State where even a vote swing of 2 to 5 per cent could cause a huge difference in the seats won by a political party. A three or four-cornered contest could lead to a splitting of the majority of the votes so that a candidate with a minority share of the votes polled could emerge victorious. The Election Commission has set down a bench-mark which is not unreasonable. In order to gain recognition as a political party, a party has to prove itself and to establish its credibility as a serious player in the political arena of the State. Once it succeeds in doing so, it will become entitled to all the benefits of recognition, including the allotment of a common symbol.34. There cannot be any difference of opinion that, as was laid down in Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (supra), a voter has the right to know the antecedents of the candidates, a view which was later reiterated by this Court in Peoplebs Union for Civil Liberties (supra), but such right has to be balanced with the ground realities of conducting a State-wide poll. The Election Commission has kept the said balance in mind while setting the bench-marks to be achieved by a political party in order to be recognized as a State Party and become eligible to be given a common election symbol. We do not see any variance between the views expressed by the Constitution Bench in the PUCL case and the amendments effected by the Election Commission to the Election Symbols Order, 1968, by its Notification dated 1st December, 2000.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]31. The submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners regarding the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, and the power of the Election Commission to settle issues relating to claims of splinter groups to be the original party, had fallen for the decision of this Court about forty years ago in Sadiqcase, when this Court had occasion to observe that the Election Commission had been clothed with plenary power by Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in the matter of conducting of elections, which included the power to allot symbols to candidates during elections. The challenge to the vires of the Symbols Order, 1968, was, accordingly, repelled.32. The view in Sadiqcase has since been followed in the All Party HillConference case (supra), Roop Lalcase (supra), Kanhiya Lalcase (supra) and as recently as in Subramaniancase (supra), to which reference has been made in the earlier part of this judgment, where the provisions of Article 324 of the Constitution vesting the superintendence, direction and control of elections, were considered in detail and it was, inter alia, held that in addition to Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the powers vested in the Election Commission could be traced to Article 324 of the Constitution.33. The evolution of the law relating to the criteria for a political party to be recognized as a State Party clearly indicates that the Election Commission, in its wisdom, was of the view that in order to be recognized as a political party, such party should have achieved a certain bench-mark in State politics. Nothing new has been brought out in the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners which could make us take a different view from what has been decided earlier. Mr.submissions regarding political parties winning a larger number of seats while polling a lesser percentage of the votes, sounds attractive, but has to be discarded. Mr.submissions are in relation to the poll performance of the larger parties within a State where even a vote swing of 2 to 5 per cent could cause a huge difference in the seats won by a political party. A three or four-cornered contest could lead to a splitting of the majority of the votes so that a candidate with a minority share of the votes polled could emerge victorious. The Election Commission has set down a bench-mark which is not unreasonable. In order to gain recognition as a political party, a party has to prove itself and to establish its credibility as a serious player in the political arena of the State. Once it succeeds in doing so, it will become entitled to all the benefits of recognition, including the allotment of a common symbol.34. There cannot be any difference of opinion that, as was laid down in Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (supra), a voter has the right to know the antecedents of the candidates, a view which was later reiterated by this Court in Peoplebs Union for Civil Liberties (supra), but such right has to be balanced with the ground realities of conducting a State-wide poll. The Election Commission has kept the said balance in mind while setting the bench-marks to be achieved by a political party in order to be recognized as a State Party and become eligible to be given a common election symbol. We do not see any variance between the views expressed by the Constitution Bench in the PUCL case and the amendments effected by the Election Commission to the Election Symbols Order, 1968, by its Notification dated 1st December, 2000.