SADIQ ALI AND ANR. ETC. v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC.
Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 318; 1971 INSC 310
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K.S. HEGDE , A.N. GROVER, HANS RAJ KHANNA
Judgment date:
Case summary
1971 INSC 310. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1971-11-11. SADIQ ALI AND ANR. ETC. v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC. Read the judgment...
Judgment text
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS SADIQ AJ;,I AND. ANIJ, ETC. v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC. November 11, 1971 [K. S. ijEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ. ] SyinboTs (Resetvation and Allotment) Ord_er, 1968-Paragraph 15- Party splitting itself into two groups-Each group claiming symbol- Powers of Eleftion Commission in inquiry under para. 15-Test of majority mrd numerical strength-Relevancy-Binding nature of decislon oJ Election Commission-Para 15 not ultra vites the powers of the Commission. The Indian National Congress, a recognised national party under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1%8 had as its symbol ''Two Bullocks with Yoke on" for the purpose of elections. The Congress is a voluntary associatiop with its own Constitution. In 1969, following differences over the choice of the congress nominee for the office of the President of India, the Congress split itself into tl;o groups-congress 'O' and1 congress 'J'. On January 15.
1970 " communication was addressed by the Election Commission to the Secretary of congress 'J' as well as that of congress '0' stating that "a dispute appears to have arisen as to which ·of the two groups is the recognised political party known as the Indian National Congr~ss" far the purpos, of the Election Symbols Order and that the commission was required to take a decisioa in the matter in terms of para 15 read with para 18 of the. Order. Both the groups presented their claim before the Commission. The Commission framed and settled the following four points for consideration : (I) Has the Election Commission jurisdiction within the meaning of paragraph 15 of the Election Symbol (Reservetion & Allotment) Order 1968, to decide whether any one or none of the rival section or groups of the Indian National Congres. s, "natiorial party", i. s the said Indian National Congress?
( 2) Has the Election Commission, for the purpose of undertaking the inquiry to come to a decision as aforesaid. been satisfied on information in its possession that there are tWo rival section or groups of the said Indian Na! ional Congress each claiming ' to ~ that Congress ? (3) What is the nature of an election symbol under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order. 1968 and whether an election symbol, whelher reserved or free, is property ? ( 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances available to the Election Commission, any of the alleged rival sections of the said Indian National Congress is that Congress for the purpose of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968; if so: which is that rival section, or whether on the facts and circumstances referred to above. noDc of the rival sections of the . i;aid Indian National Congress is that Congress ?
The contention that the Working Committee or the President of Cong- ~ess 'O', who ~as the President of the Indian National Congress at the time of the spht, were the only authorities to give a binding decision was repelled bv the Commission. · The Commission -held that the very existence of a conftict was enough to create jurisdiction to find ou: and decide, on SADIQ, ALI V. ELECTION COMMISSION 319 the facts and circumstances established, whether the conflict was genuine and whether the claim and allegations of the applicants were valid. On point 2 the Commission observed that it was satisfied on the information available in its possession that there were two rival sections of the Indian National Congress, each claiming to be that congress. Regarding point 3 ' the finding of the Commission was that the Election Symbol was not property. As . regards point No. 4, the CommissioILObserved that the majority test \Vas a valuable and relevant test in '!. l. democratic organisation.
The test based upon the provisions of the Constitution of the Congress, canvassed on ;;"holi of the Congress 'O', was held to be hardly of any assistance in view . of the removals from membership '1nd expulsions from the committees of the Congress of the members belonging to one group by those belonging to the opposite group. The Commission then considered anothe. r. test, namely, that based upon the aims and objects as incorporated in the Constitution of the Congress. It was observed that none of the two groups had challenged in any manner or openly repudiated those aims and objects. The test based upon the aims and objects was consequently held to be ineffective and neutral.
Applying the test of majority, the Commission observed that Congress 'J' had the m'1jority out of the total numbor of members retu'med on con~ tickets to the HQuses of Parliament as well as the majority out of the sum total of the members of all the Legislatures returned on congress tickets although in some States, like Gujarat and Mysore, Congross 'O' had majority in the Legislature. As regards the organisational wing of the congress, the Commission came to the conclusion that Congress 'J' enjoyed majority in the All-India Congress Committee as well as amongst the delegates of the undivided congress. As regards the delegates who were entitled to vote at the earlier Faridabad Session of Congress, the Commission found that out of the total number of 4690 delegates, 2870 pledged their support to Congress 'J'. Regarding the members of the All India Congress Committee (A. i. C. C. )• the Commission held that the total number of A. I. C. C.
members who attended the Bombay meeting of the Congress J. was 423 out of 707 elected members and 56 out of 95 nominated and coopted n1embers. The Bombay session, it was further held, assumed importance in view of the fact that all tlro resolutions passed at the requisitioned meeting of Congress 'J' at Delhi were 'r:lfified unanimously at the Bombay session. For dotermining as to who were members of A.!. C. C. and delegates the Commission accepted those persons as members of A. I. C. C. and delegates who held that position in the earlier session of the C'on~ress at Faridabad before the split. Decision w~s accordingly given that for the purpose of paragraph 15 of the Symbol order Congress 'J' was the congress for which the symbol "Two Bullocks with Yoke on" had been reserved. Appeal was filed against this orde. r _of the Election Commission. An appeal was also filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court on a certifiC'1te granted bv that Court.
repelling the contention that paragraph 15 was ultra vires and invalid in so far as it conferred power on the Comn1ission to decide the dispute between two groups of a political party. On (i) the question whether the test of majority or numerical strength which was taken into account by tbe Commission was in the circumstances of the case a relevant and germane-test; (ii) the binding nature of ! he decision given by the Commission under paragraph 15; and (iii) the question whether paragraph 15 was ultra vires and invalid HELD ; Dismissing the appeals (! ) The occasion for making an order under paragraph 15 arises when the Commission is satisfied, on the information in its possession, that there are rival sections or groups of a recognised political party each of whom [1972) 2 S. C. R. claims to be that party.
In the circumstances of the pre"-lnt case the commission had to decide the matter under paragraph 15 and there was notll-ing objectionable in the communication dated January 15, 1970, sent to the two rival parties on its behalf. [333 El As Conaress iS a democratic organisation the test of majority and numerical strength was a very valuable and relevomt test. The figures found by the Commission of the members of the two houses of Parliament and of the state legislatures as well as those of A. I~C. C. members and delegates who supported Congress 'J', have not been shown to ·be incorrect. In view of these figures it can hardly be disputed that susbtan-tial majority Qf the members of the congress in both its legislative wing as well as th» organisation wing supported Congress 'J'. -L336 Al In view of the removals and expulsions which followed in the wake of split in the con_gress, the Commission adopted proper approach for determining as to who should be taken to be members of A. I. C. C.
or the delegates, more so, when in the opinion of the Commission, the validity of those removal~ and expulsions was open to question. Further, if according to paragraph 6 of the Symbols Order the number of seats secured by a political party or the number of votes cast in fayour of the candidates of a politi~al party can be a relevant consideration for the recognition of a politioal party, one is at a loss to understand how u,, numbers of seats in the Parliament and state legislatures held by the supporters of a group of the political party can be considered irrelevant.. Consequently, there is no errqr in the approach of the commission in applying the rule of majority and numerical strength for determining as to which of the two groups was the Congress party for the purpose of para 15 of the Symbols Order. [336 E, C; 338 Bl Even though the mass of congress members are primary members there are practical difficulties in ascertaining the wishes of those members.
It can be legitimately considered that the members of the A. I. C. C. and the delegates reflected, by and large, the views of the primary members. The Commission, in any inquiry under paragraph 15, has to act with a certain measure of promptitude and it has to see that the inquiry does not get bogged down in " quagmire. [336 Fl Paragraph 13 of the Symbols order has nothing to do with the question of resolvini: a dispute wherein two rival sections or groups of a recognised political 11arty claim to be that party. For resolving of such a dispute only paragraph 15 is to be looked into. 1338 G-H] General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland and Others v. Lord Overtoun and Others, E! 904] A. C. 515, distinguished. Samyukta Socialist Party v. Election Commission of India & Anr. , [1967] I S. C. R 643, held inapplicable. The symbol is not property to be divided betwetn co-owners.
The allotment of a symbol to the candidates set up by a political party is a legal right and in case of split the Commission has been authorised to determine which of the rival groups or section is the party which was entitled to the symbol. The Commission in resolving this dispute does not decide as to which group represents the party, but which group is that party. (339 HJ (ii) The claim made is only for the purpose of symbols m connection with elections to the Parliament and state legislatures and the decision of SADIQ ALI v. ELECTION COMMISSION (Khanna, J. ) 32 I lhe Commission under parallfaph 15 constitutes a direction to the Returning Officer for the purpose of rule 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The said direction shall be binding upon the Returning Officer in accord;mce with sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule JO.
1339 DJ [The Court did not express any opinion on the question whether the decision of the Commission can be called into question in appropriate pro-ceedinKs in a court of law. ] (iii} There is no substance in the contention that paraaraph 15 of the Symbols order is ultra vires the powers of the Commission. The Commission has been clothed with plenary powers by the Conduct of Election Rules in the matter of allotmeqt of symbols. If the Commission is not to be disabled from exercising effectively the plena;y powers >"CSted in it in the matter of allotment of symbol and for issuing directions in con-nec:lion therewitl! , it is plainly essential that the Commission should have the power to settle a dispute in case claim for the allotment of the symbol of a political party is made by two rival claimants. Para 15 is intended to effectuate and subscrve the main purpose and objects of the symbols order.
The Commission is an authority created by the Constitution and according to Article 324, the superintendence, direction and clontrol of the Electoral rolls for the conduct of elections to Parliament and the legiolature of every state and of elections to the offices of President and Vice President is vested in the Commission. The fact thaJ the power of resolving a dispute between two rival groups for allotment of symbol of a political party has been vested in such a high authority would raise a presumption, though rebuttable, and provide a guarantee, though not absolute but to a considerable extent, that the power would not be misused but would be exercised in a fai'r and reasonable manner. [342 A-G] There is also no substance in the contention that as power fo make pr0>isions in respect to elections has been given to the Parliament by Article 327, the power cannot be further delegated to the Commission.
The law made bv Parliament under article 327 is subject to the other provisions of the Constitution including artic~ 324. It, therefore, cannot be said that when the Commission issues direction, it does so not on its own behalf but as delegate of some other authority. [342 H] ClvIL APPEELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1971. Appeal by Special Leave from the decision dated the 11th I anuary 1971 of the Election Commission of India in the matter of an inquiry under paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. AND Civil Appeals Nos. 2122 to 2124 of 1970. Appeals from the judgment and order dated the 1Sth June, 1970 of the Madras High Court in W. As. Nos. 327 and 345 of 1970 and W. P. No. 513 of 1970. Shanti Bhushan, K. C. Sharma, Y. K. Mathew and V. P. Chaudhry, for the Appellants in C. A. No. 70 of 1971. R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 70 of 1971 ). [1972] 2 S. C. R. K. L. Mishra, A. P. Misra, Naunit Lal, V. P.
Nanda, Janak Raj, Swaranjit Sodhi and R. K. Shukla, for respondent No. 2 (ln C. A. No. 70 of 1971). A. K. Sen, Bawa Shiv Charan, K. S. Suri, 0. P. Sharma and Kai/ash Mehta, for respondent No. 3 (in C. A. No. 70 of 1971). P. N. Lekhi, M. K. Garg and V. C. Prashar, for respondent No. 5 (In C. A. No. 70 of 1971 ). Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava, S. L. Bhargava and V. C. Prashar, for respondent No. 5 (In C. A. No. 70 of 1271. Respondent No. 6 appeared in person (In C. A. No. 70 of 1971 ). M. Natesan, T. L. Garg and R. Gopalakrishnan, for 'ihe Intervener (In C. A. No. 70 of 1971) and the appellants (In C. As. Nos. 2122 to 2124 of 1970). R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (In C. A. Nos. 2122 and 2123 of 1970) and respondent No. 1 (C. A. No. 2124 of 1970). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J. Civil Appeal No.
70 of 1971 has been filed by special leave by Shri Sadiq Ali and another against the order of the Election Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) under paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Symbols Order'), whereby the Commission held that for the vur-pose of allotment of symbol in elections the political party presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram was the Indian National Congress and was entitled to the symbol of ''Two Bullocks with Yoke on'', reserved for the said Congress. Indian National Congress (hereinafter referred to as the 'Congress') is a recognised National Party under the Symbols Order. The symbol of the "Two Bullocks with Yoke on" was exclusively reserved for the Congress' for the purpose of elections to the Houses of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the States and Union Territories.
The Congress is a voluntary association; it is neither a statutory body 0rior a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It has framed fts own constitution and rules. Shri S. Nijalingappa was elected President. of the Congress with effect from 1st January, 1968 for a period of two years. Dr. Zakir Hussain, President of India, died in 1969. Split then took place in the Congress Party following differences over SADIQ ALI v. ELECTION COMMISSION (Khanna, J. ) 323 the choice of Congress nominee for the office of the Presidenrot India. Each group claime\l. to represent the Congress Party. One of the groups elected Shri C. Subramaniam as (he President of the Congress. Subsequently, Shri Jagjivan Ram was elected President by this group in place of Shri Subramaniam. For sake ·Of conve-nience this group would hereafter be referred to as Congress 'J'.
Shri Nijalingappa continued to be the President of the party represented by the other group which would hereafter be referred to as Congress 'O'. On 21st December, 1969, Shri Subramaniam claiming to ~e the President of the Congress, addressed a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner stating that there had been a change in the office-bearers of the Congress. Enclosed with the letter was the list of office-bearers of Congress 'J' Party and it was stated that they were the office-bearers of the Congress. There was then some exchange of correspondence between the Commission and Congress 'J' Party. On 3rd January, 1970, a communication was addressed to the Election Commission on behalf of the Congress 'J' that Shri Jagjiva. n Ram had been duly eletced as Pre. sident of the Congress and had taken charge on December 25, 1969, during the plenary session held at Bombay. On 8th January, 1970, a letter was sent on behalf of the Commission to the Secretary of Congress '0'.
Enclosed with that letter was a copy ·of the letter of Shri Subramaniam dated 21-12-1969. The Congress '0' was asked to make its comments 1 so as to enable the Commission to take decision in the matter after hearing both parties. On 14th January, 1970, a reply was sent on behalf of Congress 'O' by its General Secretary, Shri Sadiq Ali. In that reply it was stated that Shri Subramaniam who had styled himself as the President of the Congress was, in fact, not its President and that the duly elected President of the Congress was Shri Nijalingappa. It was also stated that the office-bearers mentioned by Shri Subramaniam including Shri Subramaniam llimself, were persons expelled from the Congress and ha. d otherwis\ c~ed to be the members of the Congress. Further, according t f Congress 'I' were controverted and it was stated that the Election Commission had no jurisdiction to hold the enquiry.
According to the counter-statement, the Congress Parliamentary Board in its meeting held in July 1969 decided by majority to put up E, Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy as candidate for the office of the"President -Of lndi;i. The decision of the majority upset Smt. Indira Gandhi. Smt. Indira Gandhi, Shri Jagjivan Ram and Shri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, at the initial stage8 'Ot the Presidential election, supported the candidature of Shri Sanjiva Reddy but subsequently they started a campaign for the defeat of the Congress candidate al! d for the ~uccess of Shri V. V. Giri. The explanaiions of Shrin_lllti Indira Gandhi, Shri Jagjivan Ram and Shri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed were -called by the Congress President on 18th August, 1969 .. On 31st October 1969, Shri Nija! ingappa wrote a letter to Shri Subrama-llliam that he had ceased to be a member of the Working Committee.
The reason for that was that Shri Subramaniam who was a member of _the All India Congress Committee by virtue of being the President of the Tamil Nadu Congress Coinmittee, had resigned the Presidentship thereof and had thus ceased to be a member of the All India Congress Committee. Shri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed was removed from the membership of the Working Committee because according to the counter-statement, he had lost the confid-ence of the President. The requisition sent for calling a meeting: of the All India Congress Committee was rejected in a meeting of the Congress Working Committee on 1st November, 1969. W11e11 the members of the Congress Working Committee learnt SADIQ ALI v. ELECTION COMMISSION (Khanna, !. ) 321 from newspaper reports that some members of the Working Com•. mittee had taken a decision to convene a meeting ol the All India. Congress Committee on 22nd and 23rd November, 1969, the Working Committeti took the view that it was bound to· result in indiscipline.
Shri Nijalingappa then addressed a letter to Shrimati Indira Gandhi charging her with indiscipline and. , asking her to explain her position. As regards the validity of the resolution postponing the elec-· tions, the case set up in the counter-statement is that the said resolution was valid ir. law and its validity had not been questioned by one one. Regarding the notice sent by 17 members of the All India Congress Committee for convening the requisitioned meeting of the All lndia Congrtss Committee, the case of the Congress '0' is that the said notice was invalid and the persons who attended the meeting on 22nd and 23rd November, 1969 did so in their personal capacity. The decisions taken in that meeting are stated to have no effect on the Working Committee. Smt. Indira Gandhi, who presided over the meeting, according to the counter-statemept, had been expelled from the primary membership. of Congress on 12th November, 1969.
The resolution passed in the meeting held on 22nd and 23rd November, 1969 being void ab initio could not be subsequently ratified by any authority. As regards the Members of Parliame,rit and State Legislatures who declared their allegiance to Congress 'J', the stand taken in the countcr-statement is that their position was that of defector. A rejoinder and some c;ither applications were thereafter filed~ 1he Commission U1l 7th March, 1970 framed and settled the following four points for discussion :- 1. Has the Election Commission jurisdiction within the mea! ling of paragraph 15 of the Election Symbol (Reservation & Allotment) Order 1968, to decide whether any one or none of the rival sections or groups of the Indian National Congress .. a national party, is the said Lndian National Congress? 2.
Has the Election Commission, for the purpose of undertaking the inquiry to come to a decision as aforesaid, been satisfied on information in its possession that there are two rival sections or groups of the said Indian National Congress each· claiming to be that Congress ? 3. What is the nature of an election symbol under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) (1972] 2 S. C. R. Order, 1968, and whether an election symbol, whether reserved or free, is property ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances available to the Election Commission, any of the alleged rival sections of the said Indian National Congress is that Congress for the purposes of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968; if so, which 1s that rival section, or, whether on the facts and Circumstances referred to above, none of the rival sections of the said Indian National Congress is that Congress ?
" In an order covering 43 7 pages which, consideri,rtg the nature of controversy, appears to be abnormally prolix, the Commission held on the first point that R had jurisdiction to decide the matter. The contention that the Working Committee or the President of Congress '0' were the only authorities to give a binding decision .
in the dispute was repelled in the following words :- "If, therefore, there are facts in the present case which show a total and entire cleavage in the Indian National Congress from top to bottom, and that the rivalry between the two l(roups has almost assumed the form of enmity, then relying upon a few provisions of the Constitution and the rules of the party it cannot, in my view, be validly contended that the Election Commission has no jurisdiction because the Working Committee or the President of one group whose existence and authority ar~ totally repudiated by the other group, are the only authorities to give final ·and binding decisions in the present dispute. The very existence of such a conllict is enough to create jurisd~ction to find out and decide whether the conflict is genuine and whether the claims and allegations of the applicants are valid or the contentions and objections of the opposite parties.
But that question will have to be determined on the facts and circumstances established in the case". On point 2, the Commission observed that it was satisfied on the information available in its possession that there were two rival sections of the Indian National Congress, each claiming to be that Congress. Regarding point 3, the finding of the Commission was that the Election Symbol was not property. As regards point No. 4, the Commission observe that the majority test was a valuable and relevant test in a democratic organisation. The test based upon the provisions of the Constitution of the Congress canvassed on behalf of the Congress '0' was held to be hardly of any assistance in view of the removals from membership and expulsions SADIQ ALI v. ELECTION COMMISSION (Khanna, J. ) 329 from the Committees of the Congress of the members belonging to one group by those belonging to the opposite group.
Reference was also made in this context to the rejection of the requisition sent by some members of Congress 'J' for convening a meeting of the All India Congress Committee. The Commission then considered another test, namely, that based upon the aims and objects as incorporated in the Constitution of the Congress. It was observed that none of the two groups had challenged in any manner or openly repudiated those aims and objects. The test based upon the aims and object was consequently held to be ineffective and neutral. Applying the test of majority, the Commission observed that Congress 'J' had the majority out of the total number of members returned on Congress tickets to the Houses of Parliament as well as the majority out of the sum total of the members of all the Legislatures returned on Congress tickets although in some States, like Gujarat and Mysore, Congress '0' had majority in the Legislature.
As regards the organisl_ltional wing of the Congress, the Commission came to the. conclusion that Congress 'J' enjoyed majority in the All India Congress Committee as well as amongst the delegates of the undivided Congress. Decision was accordingly given that for the purpose of paragraph 15 of the Symbol Order, Congress 'J' was the Congress for which the symbol "Two bullocks with Yoke On had been reserved. Before dealing with the contentions advanced in appeal, it may be appasite to refer to the relevant provisions. Art. 324 of the Constitution provides inter alia that the superintendence, dllection and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and Legislative Assemblies of the States and all elections to the offices of President and Vioe- President held under the Constitution shall be vested in the Com· mission.
According to section 169 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), the Central Government may, after consulting the Election Commission by notification in the oflici~l gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. 'Y1thout prejudice to the generality oi the foregoing power, s~b-section (2) en~erate_s some of the matters for which provi-s10n may be made Ill the rules. Sub-section ( 3) requires that the rules framed should be laid before each House of Parliament. Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 were thereafter framed by the C~n~al Goverll! 11ent. Rule S of those Rules requires the Com-m1ss10n. to specify ~he symbols that may be chosen by candidates at. e~echons ID ~arhamentary and Assembly elections and the res-tnctt?! lS to which that ch01ce shall be subject. Rule 10 makes prov1S1on f? r allotment of symbols to the contesting candidates by the Returmng Officer subject to general or special directions issued by the Commission.
· The Symbols Order has been issued by the Commission in exercise of. the powers conferred by Article 324 9f the Constitution read. with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules. Paragraph 2 of the Symbols Order contains the vanous definitions. According to cla! Jle (h) of that paragraph, political party means an association or body of individual citizens of India registered with the Commission as a political party under paragraph 3 and includes a political party deemed to be registered with the Commission under the proviso to sub-paragraph 2 of that paragraph. Para-l! raph 3 deals with registration with the Commission of associations and bodies as political parties for the purpose of the Order.
According tq that paragraph, any association or body of individuals, citizens of India calling itself a politcal party and intending to avail itself of the provisions of the Order shall make an application to the Commission for its registration as a political party for the purpose of that Order. S. ub-paragraph (2) provides the period within which an application has to be made. Exemption from making the application in certain contigency with which we. are not concerned is also granted. Sub-paragraphs 3 & 4 specify the formalities and the particulars ! "equired for the application. The particulars include the names of the President, Secretary and other office-bearers of the political party, the numerical strength of· its members as well as the political principles on which it was based and the policies, aims and objects it pursued or sought to pursue. Power is given to the Commission under sub-paragraph 5 to call for further particulars.
The Commissio,n thereafter decides whether to register the association or body as political party or not. The decision of the Commission in this respect has been made final by sub-paragraph 7. Provision is furthter made by sub-paragraph 8 that after the association or body has been registered as a political party, any change i,n its name,. head-office, oflice-bearers, address and political principles, policies_, aims and objects and any change in any other material matter, shall be communicated to the Commission without delay. Paragraph 4 provide> for allotment of symbols. Paragraph 5 deals with the classifica-tion of symbols. According to this paragraph, a reserved symbol is a symbol reserved for a political party for exclusive use by that party. A symbol other than the reserved symbol has been des-cribed by the said paragraph to be a free symbol. Political parties have been classified as recognised political parties of un-recognised political parties by _paragraph 6.
The recognised political parties have been divided into t. ,vo categories. If a political party js treated as a recognised political party in four or more states jn accordance. with paragraph 6, it shalJ have the status of a national party throughout the ·whole of In~ia. If . ~n the cont;ary a politi'cal party is treated as a recogmsed po]Itlcal party m Jess than four states, it shall enjoy the status of a state party in the state SADIQ ALI v. ELECTION COMMISSION (Khanna, J. ) 331 or siates in which it is a recognised political party. We need not dilate upon this aspect because I. it is common case of the part! es tlrat the Congress is a national party. Paragraph S deals with choice of symbols by candidates of national and state parties and allotment thereof. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 & 12 deal with certain restrictions on the allotment of symbols, concessions to certain candidates as well as the c)mice oJ' symbols by some categories ~f candidates with which we are not concerned.
Paragraph 13 speci-fies' as to when a candidate shall be deemed to be set up as a candidate by a political party and reads as under:- " 13. When a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party- For the purposes of this Order a ca,ndidate shalJ be deemed to be set up by a political party if, and only if·-- (a) the candidate has made a declaration to that effect in his nomination paper; ( h) a notice in writing to that effect has not later than 3 p. m.
on the last day of withdrawal of candidatures, been delivered to the returning officer of the constituenc:z:; and ( c) the said notice is signed by the President, the secretary or any other office-bearer of the party and the president, secretary or such other office-bearer is authorised by the party to send such notice and the name and specimen signature of the president, the secretary or such other office-bearer are communicated in advance to the returning officer of the constituency and to the Chief Electoral Officer o( the State". . Par~graph 14 gives power to the Commission to issue certain mstruct10ns to ~n-recognised poli! ical parties. Paragraph 15 with which we are directly concerned m this case reads as under :- "15.
P~wer of , -t the slender majority enjoyed by Congress 'J' in the Working Conunittee, Congress 'J' had substantial majority among the members of AlCC and the delegates as well as the Congress members of two Houses of Parliament as also the sum total cf members of the State Legislatures. The observations of late Pandit Jawahar! al Nehru in the course of his speech on Kamraj Plan in the meeting of AICC held in August 1963, to which a reference has be~n made on behalf of 'the appellants, is hardly of any assistance to the appellants for the purpose of this case. Pandit Nehru in that speech emphasized the importance of the organisational wing of the Congress and said that if the AICC or the Working Committee did not desire that h. e should remain in office, he was not going to have general elections 1o secure the support of the people against the said Committees. It is obvious that the stress in that speech was on the i:eed of . the Prime Minister securing the support of the organisa- !
JOnal wmg. The speech did not deal with a contingency as arises in the present case of resolving a dispute wherein one group has the s~pp? rt of t~e majority of the legislative wing as well as the orgamsa. uonal wmg other than the Working Committee. The pret make provisions in respect to elections has been given to the Par. liament by Article 327 of the Constitution. the- power cannot be f. urther delegated to the Commission. The oocnin. g worcb <>i Article 327 are "subject to the provisions of thi, Constitutiun·· Tl1e above words indicate that any law made by the Parliament in SADIQ ALI v. ELECTION COMMISSION (Khanna, J. ) 343 exercise of the powers conferred by Article 327 would be subject to the other provisions of the Constitution including Article 324. Article 324 as mentioned above provides that superintendence, direction and control of elections shall be vested in Election Com-nms1on.
It, therefore, cannot be said that when the Commission issues direction, it does so not on its own behalf but as the delegate. of some other authority. It may also be mentioned in this context that when the Central Government issued Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 in exercise of its powers under section 169 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, it did so as required by that section after consultation with the Commission. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order is ultra vires the powers of the Commisison. The result is that all the four appeals fail and are dismissed' but in the circumstances without costs. S. C. Appeals dismissed.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.