Case: Samyukta Socialist Party Vs. Election Commission Of India &amp; Anr

new party and also accepted the request. It is equally clear that on January 31, 1963 the Samyukta Socialist Party broke up at its very first meeting and the Praja Socialist Party, which reorganized itself claimed its original symbol. The Election Commission did not decide whether the merger was final or provisional, but, after enquiry, found it established that the original leaders of the Praja Socialist Party together with the bulk of the members of the Party had, in fact, left the united Party. The Election Commission ascertained the relative strengths of the Praja Socialist Party and the Samyukta Socialist Party before and after the break-up and came to the conclusion that the Parties had reverted to their original state. The Election Commission, therefore, restored the symbol of Hut to the Praja Socialist Party as its original party symbol and the symbol of Tree to the Samyukta Socialist Party as representing the old Socialist Party leaving it open to the Samyukta Socialist Party to choose any other free symbol if it liked. 10. The question is whether in doing so the Election Commission acted capriciously or without jurisdiction. We think the facts support the action of the Election Commission and also that it was within its jurisdiction. If the Praja Socialist Party after the break-up, was a new party or had a new leadership then the symbol, which originally belonged to the defunct Praja Socialist Party, could not be claimed by the new Praja Socialist Party as a matter of right, but if it was the same party with the same leaders which contested the earlier elections with the symbol of Hut there was complete justification in restoring the party to its original position so that the advantage of a symbol identified with a party should not be lost to it. Although we are clear that a change of symbol by the Election Commission arbitrarily would be outside its competency, because the Rules framed by the Central Government and supplemented by the Election Commission in its Notification do not contemplate a discretion to the Election Commission, there is some jurisdiction in the Election Commission to regulate or restrict the choice of symbols in circumstances such as this. Although no power is given to the Election Commission to impose its own wishes on parties or candidates, it can, in a suitable case, restore the lost advantage to a party before the symbol can be said to be finally assigned to another party. Can we, therefore, say, in this case, that the Election Commission imposed its will arbitrarily or capriciously on the Samyukta Socialist Party when it took away the symbol of Hut from it? On a careful consideration of the correspondence between the Election Commission on the one hand, and the Praja Socialist Party on the other, and taking into consideration all available facts, we are satisfied that the action of the Election Commission was within its jurisdiction when it recognised the choice of the symbol by the Praja Socialist Party and cannot be described as an interference with the choice of the Samyukta Socialist Party. 11. To begin with the action is bona fide, for no malice or any other improper motive has even been suggested. The Samyukta Socialist Party only contends that the Election Commission, was not competent to cancel the symbol chosen by the Samyukta Socialist Party. It submits that unlike the earlier rule, the new R. 5 (1) only enables the Election Commission to place restrictions on the choice of the candidate or the party but the choice once made by the candidate or the party is final and the Election Commission has no further say in the matter. It also submits that the facts do not justify the assumption of the Election Commission that the parties had once again reverted to the pre-merger state. 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 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. 12. But what we have said has a double edge on it. If the merger of Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist Party was unsuccessful and before any significant time had passed the Praja Socialist Party had decided to separate, and if all the leaders of the party and almost all its original members decided to quit the amalgamated party, the benefit of its symbol could not be left to the Socialist Party which, in the events that have happened, is bearing the name of the unified party. It is no longer the unified party it was when the name was assumed. Parties have a sentimental attachment for their symbols. The Hut was the symbol of the Praja Socialist Party and the amalgamated party chose the Hut rather than the Tree because of the greater success of the Praja Socialist Party at the polls. If disagreement led to a quick break-up before the new party or its symbol could be properly grounded, the reversion to the original position was not only logical but also eminently just. It is clear, therefore, that the Election Commission proceeded along the right lines and reached the right conclusion both legally and in the light of the facts ascertained by it from impartial sources. We see no force in the appeal and it will be dismissed but we make no order as to costs.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]This is not correct. The restrictions which the Election Commission has framed for the use of the symbols are quite clear and permit the issuance of fresh notifications if symbols are required to be changed. The restrictions when analysed are these. Before a candidate can choose a symbol it must be free. Before a reserved symbol can be chosen the candidate must be accredited to the party whose symbol it is and it must be shown by the Election Commission in its notification as the symbol of that party. Obviously, therefore, if circumstances change the notification must follow suit. Parties may come into existence and parties may go out of existence: parties may unite or parties may separate. This will require amendment of the notification. Just as the Election Commission allotted the Hut as a symbol by a change of notification to the Samyukta Socialist Party, it can allot it to another party if circumstances made that course obligatory and just. The Election Commission is required to give effect to restrictions of its own making but that does not restrict its own powers so long as what it does is in consonance with facts and the action is dictated by them. It must not, of course, favour one party so as to harm another. It must only change a symbol when the circumstances justify such a change9. There is no doubt that for a time the Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist Party did genuinely unite to from the Samyukta Socialist Party and that the Secretaries of the two Parties wrote to the Election Commission recognised the new party and also accepted the request. It is equally clear that on January 31, 1963 the Samyukta Socialist Party broke up at its very first meeting and the Praja Socialist Party, which reorganized itself claimed its original symbol. The Election Commission did not decide whether the merger was final or provisional, but, after enquiry, found it established that the original leaders of the Praja Socialist Party together with the bulk of the members of the Party had, in fact, left the united Party. The Election Commission ascertained the relative strengths of the Praja Socialist Party and the Samyukta Socialist Party before and after the break-up and came to the conclusion that the Parties had reverted to their original state. The Election Commission, therefore, restored the symbol of Hut to the Praja Socialist Party as its original party symbol and the symbol of Tree to the Samyukta Socialist Party as representing the old Socialist Party leaving it open to the Samyukta Socialist Party to choose any other free symbol if it liked11. To begin with the action is bona fide, for no malice or any other improper motive has even been suggested. The Samyukta Socialist Party only contends that the Election Commission, was not competent to cancel the symbol chosen by the Samyukta Socialist Party. It submits that unlike the earlier rule, the new R. 5 (1) only enables the Election Commission to place restrictions on the choice of the candidate or the party but the choice once made by the candidate or the party is final and the Election Commission has no further say in the matter. It also submits that the facts do not justify the assumption of the Election Commission that the parties had once again reverted to the pre-merger state. 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 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 party12. But what we have said has a double edge on it. If the merger of Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist Party was unsuccessful and before any significant time had passed the Praja Socialist Party had decided to separate, and if all the leaders of the party and almost all its original members decided to quit the amalgamated party, the benefit of its symbol could not be left to the Socialist Party which, in the events that have happened, is bearing the name of the unified party. It is no longer the unified party it was when the name was assumed. Parties have a sentimental attachment for their symbols. The Hut was the symbol of the Praja Socialist Party and the amalgamated party chose the Hut rather than the Tree because of the greater success of the Praja Socialist Party at the polls. If disagreement led to a quick break-up before the new party or its symbol could be properly grounded, the reversion to the original position was not only logical but also eminently just. It is clear, therefore, that the Election Commission proceeded along the right lines and reached the right conclusion both legally and in the light of the facts ascertained by it from impartial sources. We see no force in the appeal and it will be dismissed but we make no order as to costs.