Case: Ramashankar Kaushik And Another Vs. Election Commission Of India And Another

meanings. When it is used in the sense of "combine", it may imply mingling together of things, often with a loss of distinction of elements that completely merge with one another. When it is used in the sense of "unite", it implies joining or combining of things to form a single whole. When it is used in the sense of "associate", it implies joining with another or others as companion, partner, etc. According to the same dictionary, the word "component" is derived from "Com" plus "Ponere". Componere means serving as one of the parts of whole, constituent. So the word component means: "part, constituent, ingredient,"17.The expression "joining together" in paragraph 16(1) is apparently used in its broad meaning. There is nothing in the context to restrict its meaning to a case of merger of two or more political parties and their resultant extinction on formation of a new political party. It will also embrace a case of two or more political parties agreeing to form a new political party while retaining their separate identity. Our construction gets support from the expression "all the component units thereof". We think this expression is included in paragraph 16 (2) with the object of comprehending a case where two or more political parties have federated into a new political party while retaining their separate identity instead of merging themselves into the new political party. It seems to us that this expression also includes in paragraph 16 (1) a third type of case where two or more political parties, after deciding to destroy their separate identity, have brought into existence a new political party even though the process of extinction is not formally completed or is invalid and ineffective. In such a case, they retain their separate identity and will be deemed to be component units of the new party. In the second and third types, when the Commission has given recognition to the newly formed political party as a National Party or a State Party and has allotted a symbol to it, his order will be binding on them as they should be regarded as the "component units" of the new party.18. Returning to the argument of Sri Patel, we are of opinion that paragraph 15 of the Order is not attracted to the facts of the present case. The appellants did not claim before the Chief Election Commissioner that their group represented the Socialist Party recognised under paragraph 16 of the Order. The case set up by Sri Maniram Bagri was that the Socialist Party has been dissolved and that the Socialist Party is rebornSri Kaushik also pressed the claim of the S.S.P. against the Socialist Party. Admittedly there are important differences between the S.S.P. and the Socialist Party. Their flags are different so are their constitutions. Their membership is also different. The S.S.P. does not claim that it is the Socialist Party. On the facts of the present case, the appellants cannot derive any assistance from the decision in Sadiq Ali (1972) 2 SCR 318 = (AIR 1972 SC 187 ) (supra). In that case two rival groups claimed to be the Indian National Congress.19. The next argument of Sri Patel also cannot prevail. Paragraph 18(b) of the Order provides that the Commission may issue instructions and directions for the removal of any difficulty which may arise in relation to the implementation of the provisions of the Order. Obviously, no difficulty can arise in regard to the implementation of paragraph 16 of the Order in the present case. For the sake of argument it may be assumed that he merger of the Samyukta Socialist Party in the Socialist Party was not a valid and accomplished fact on the date when the symbol "Tree" was allotted to the Socialist Party under paragraph 16 and that the Samyukta Socialist Party has been enjoying a ceaseless existence. Even so, the Samyukta Socialist Party is bound by the decision of the Chief Election Commissioner under paragraph 16 (2) because the Samyukta Socialist Party would be regarded as a component unit of the Socialist Party. It cannot now go back from his decision and claim the symbol. "Tree". It should be observed that it has not been proved that the Socialist Party has ceased to exist.20. On the view that we are taking, it is not necessary to decide whether the S.S.P. had merged in the Socialist Party and destroyed its separate identity. But we should observe that if it were necessary for us to decide that matter, we should have required evidence on certain aspects. Two vital elements of an association are members and a common purpose for which they associate. If an association is constituted under a statute; it can be dissolved only in accordance with that statute; if it is organised on the basis of a contract, then it can be dissolved only in accordance with the terms of the contract, commonly called the constitution. If the constitution provides for dissolution by the consent of all the members, the rule of decision by majority is excluded. There seems to be no evidence on these material aspects.21.The last argument also does not prevail. Rule 10 (4) of the Rules will apply only when the Returning Officer is considering the choice of a symbol expressed by a contesting candidate in his nomination paper. We are not concerned with such a case at present. Rule 5 will also not apply now. The provisions of paragraph 16 of the Order will prevail over Rules 5 and 10 because rules 5 and 10 expressly are subject to any general or special directions or restrictions issued by the Election Commission. Sri Patel has relied on Samyukta Socialist Party (1967) 1 SCR 643 = (AIR 1967 SC 898 ) (supra). That decision was given under Rule 5 at a time when the Commission had not enacted the Order. As the present case is now directly governed by the provisions of the Order, the appellants cannot derive any help from that decision.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]16. It is first necessary to consider the impact of paragraph 16 on this case. A new political party is formed by the joining together of at least one recognised political party and another political party. The newly formed political party may apply for recognised to the Election Commission under paragraph 16. After due hearing, the Elction Commission may recognise the newly formed political party either as a National Party or as a State Party and may allot a symbol to it. The decision of the Commission is binding on the newly formed political party and "all the component units thereof." The two significant expressions in paragraph 16 are "joining together" and "all the component units thereof". According to the Websters New World Dictionary, 1962 Edn. page 789 the word "join" has these meanings, "(1) to place together, bring together, connect, pass on, combine; (2) to make into one, unite; (3) to become a part or a member of; enter into association with; (4) to go to and combine with; (5) to enter into the company of; a company; (6) to go and take ones proper place in." The word has evidently got several meanings. When it is used in the sense of "combine", it may imply mingling together of things, often with a loss of distinction of elements that completely merge with one another. When it is used in the sense of "unite", it implies joining or combining of things to form a single whole. When it is used in the sense of "associate", it implies joining with another or others as companion, partner, etc. According to the same dictionary, the word "component" is derived from "Com" plus "Ponere". Componere means serving as one of the parts of whole, constituent. So the word component means: "part, constituent, ingredient,"17.The expression "joining together" in paragraph 16(1) is apparently used in its broad meaning. There is nothing in the context to restrict its meaning to a case of merger of two or more political parties and their resultant extinction on formation of a new political party. It will also embrace a case of two or more political parties agreeing to form a new political party while retaining their separate identity. Our construction gets support from the expression "all the component units thereof". We think this expression is included in paragraph 16 (2) with the object of comprehending a case where two or more political parties have federated into a new political party while retaining their separate identity instead of merging themselves into the new political party. It seems to us that this expression also includes in paragraph 16 (1) a third type of case where two or more political parties, after deciding to destroy their separate identity, have brought into existence a new political party even though the process of extinction is not formally completed or is invalid and ineffective. In such a case, they retain their separate identity and will be deemed to be component units of the new party. In the second and third types, when the Commission has given recognition to the newly formed political party as a National Party or a State Party and has allotted a symbol to it, his order will be binding on them as they should be regarded as the "component units" of the new party.18. Returning to the argument of Sri Patel, we are of opinion that paragraph 15 of the Order is not attracted to the facts of the present case. The appellants did not claim before the Chief Election Commissioner that their group represented the Socialist Party recognised under paragraph 16 of the Order. The case set up by Sri Maniram Bagri was that the Socialist Party has been dissolved and that the Socialist Party is rebornSri Kaushik also pressed the claim of the S.S.P. against the Socialist Party. Admittedly there are important differences between the S.S.P. and the Socialist Party. Their flags are different so are their constitutions. Their membership is also different. The S.S.P. does not claim that it is the Socialist Party. On the facts of the present case, the appellants cannot derive any assistance from the decision in Sadiq Ali (1972) 2 SCR 318   = (AIR 1972 SC 187  ) (supra). In that case two rival groups claimed to be the Indian National Congress.19. The next argument of Sri Patel also cannot prevail. Paragraph 18(b) of the Order provides that the Commission may issue instructions and directions for the removal of any difficulty which may arise in relation to the implementation of the provisions of the Order. Obviously, no difficulty can arise in regard to the implementation of paragraph 16 of the Order in the present case. For the sake of argument it may be assumed that he merger of the Samyukta Socialist Party in the Socialist Party was not a valid and accomplished fact on the date when the symbol "Tree" was allotted to the Socialist Party under paragraph 16 and that the Samyukta Socialist Party has been enjoying a ceaseless existence. Even so, the Samyukta Socialist Party is bound by the decision of the Chief Election Commissioner under paragraph 16 (2) because the Samyukta Socialist Party would be regarded as a component unit of the Socialist Party. It cannot now go back from his decision and claim the symbol. "Tree". It should be observed that it has not been proved that the Socialist Party has ceased to exist.20. On the view that we are taking, it is not necessary to decide whether the S.S.P. had merged in the Socialist Party and destroyed its separate identity. But we should observe that if it were necessary for us to decide that matter, we should have required evidence on certain aspects. Two vital elements of an association are members and a common purpose for which they associate. If an association is constituted under a statute; it can be dissolved only in accordance with that statute; if it is organised on the basis of a contract, then it can be dissolved only in accordance with the terms of the contract, commonly called the constitution. If the constitution provides for dissolution by the consent of all the members, the rule of decision by majority is excluded. There seems to be no evidence on these material aspects.21.The last argument also does not prevail. Rule 10 (4) of the Rules will apply only when the Returning Officer is considering the choice of a symbol expressed by a contesting candidate in his nomination paper. We are not concerned with such a case at present. Rule 5 will also not apply now. The provisions of paragraph 16 of the Order will prevail over Rules 5 and 10 because rules 5 and 10 expressly are subject to any general or special directions or restrictions issued by the Election Commission. Sri Patel has relied on Samyukta Socialist Party (1967) 1 SCR 643   = (AIR 1967 SC 898  ) (supra). That decision was given under Rule 5 at a time when the Commission had not enacted the Order. As the present case is now directly governed by the provisions of the Order, the appellants cannot derive any help from that decision.