'Too Late': Delhi High Court Rejects VCK Party's Petition For Allotment Of 'Pot' Symbol To Contest General Elections 2024
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party for the allotment of "pot" symbol to contest the 2024 general elections.Justice Sachin Datta finding no merit in the petition, declined to interfere with the ECI's decision. Justice Datta observed, “It is also rightly contended by learned counsel for the Respondent that since the...
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party for the allotment of "pot" symbol to contest the 2024 general elections.
Justice Sachin Datta finding no merit in the petition, declined to interfere with the ECI's decision. Justice Datta observed, “It is also rightly contended by learned counsel for the Respondent that since the election process for the upcoming election for the year 2024 has already been set in motion, it is too late in the day to interfere with the same and the remedy of the petitioner lies under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”
The above ruling came in a petition filed by VCK seeking setting aside of the impugned letter dated 27.03.2024 issued by the respondent and to allot the “POT” symbol to the petitioner to contest the 2024 General Elections.
Prior to passing of the aforesaid order dated 27.03.2024, the ECI vide its letter dated 21.03.2024 had rejected the VCK's request for allotment of a common symbol. The said letter was assailed before the High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2024
The VCK had sought to use the common pot symbol to contest the Lok Sabha elections from Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Kerala.
On March 27, 2024, the ECI rejected VCK's application seeking “POT” as a common symbol under para 10B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
Notably, para 10B of the Election Symbols Order, states that:- "A party that has availed of the concession on two occasions shall, however, be eligible for the concession in any subsequent general election subject to the condition that on the previous occasion when the party availed of the facility, the votes polled by all the contesting candidates set up by the party at the general election in the State concerned was not less than one percent of the total valid votes polled in that State."
Taking note of the impugned letter, the Court noted that apart from the technical grounds referred to in para 3 of the aforesaid order, the substantive ground for rejecting the petitioner's application seeking common election symbol for the upcoming General Elections is that the petitioner was not eligible in terms of para (ii) of the explanation to para 10B (B) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
The impugned letter specifically recorded that the petitioner had availed the concession contemplated under para 10B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and pursuant thereto, it did not fulfill the prerequisite to avail the facility and concession for another occasion, inasmuch as in the previous elections, it had not secured 1% of the total valid votes polled, which is the minimum requirement prescribed under explanation (ii) to para 10B (B) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, the Court was unable to align with the petitioner's interpretation of para 10B (B) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court took into account the specific language of Explanation (i) within paragraph 10B (B) of the Election Symbols Order, which clearly outlines the conditions under which the concession of allotting a common symbol to candidates of a registered unrecognized party is permissible.
It states that such concession can be availed by a political party during any two General Elections to the House of People, any two General Elections to a State Legislative Assembly, or one General Election to the House of People and another to State Legislative Elections, as per the party's preference.
The Court observed that the petitioner had indeed availed this concession previously, during the 2016 Tamil Nadu and Puducherry State Legislative Assembly Elections, as well as during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections. Given that the petitioner had already utilized this concession on two prior occasions, any further attempt to avail it necessitates compliance with the requirement outlined in Explanation (ii) of para 10B (B) of the Election Symbols Order. The Court noted that the petitioner did not contest the fact that it failed to meet this requirement.
In its deliberation on the petitioner's argument regarding the availability of concession whenever the petitioner decided to field candidates in new states, the Court clarified that such an interpretation conflicted with paragraph 10B of the Election Symbols Order. This paragraph specifically grants concession for elections to the "House of People" without creating any state-wise dispensation.
The Court emphasized that although a party's performance is assessed based on the states where it fields candidates to fulfill certain conditions, this does not grant the freedom for a party, such as the petitioner, to repeatedly seek concession without meeting the requirements.
Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner's request for a common symbol in the 2021 Tamil Nadu State Legislature elections was denied by the respondent, citing that a political party could only avail of the common symbol facility on a maximum of two occasions. The Court asserted that this reasoning would equally apply to the petitioner's similar request for the upcoming 2024 General Elections.
The Court concurred with the respondent's argument that the petitioner had explicitly stated its intention to field only one candidate in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections for Kerala, thus failing to meet the condition outlined in sub-clause (i) of paragraph 10B (B) of the Election Symbols Order.
Furthermore, the Court noted that it was the petitioner's responsibility to specify the serial numbers and names of the constituencies where the party intended to field candidates, a requirement which the petitioner had neglected to fulfill.
“There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner in its application has himself stated that the petitioner intends to set up only 1 candidate in 2024 Lok Sabha elections for Kerala and therefore, the requirement of condition mentioned in sub-clause (i) of paragraph 10B (B) has not been fulfilled. Furthermore, as per sub clause (vii) of paragraph 10B (B), it is incumbent upon the petitioner to specify the serial numbers and the names of the constituencies where the party is setting up candidates, which the petitioner has failed to do. The petitioner has simply mentioned the numerical number of constituencies it intends to contest without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Symbol Order,” the Court noted.
In alignment with the respondent's stance, the Court acknowledged, “It is also rightly contended by learned counsel for the Respondent that since the election process for the upcoming election for the year 2024 has already been set in motion, it is too late in the day to interfere with the same and the remedy of the petitioner lies under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi v. ECI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 448