Karnataka High Court Permits Unrecognized Political Party To Use Private Vehicle, Loudspeaker For Election Campaigning

The Karnataka High Court has by way of an interim order permitted a yet to be recognised political party to use a private vehicle and loudspeaker for election campaigning.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while hearing a petition filed by Karnataka Rashtra Samithi Party questioning the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Returning officer, said “The order impugned is rendered unsustainable albeit, prima facie, pending filing of the statement of objections by the respondent – Election Commission of India.”

It added “I deem it appropriate to grant interim prayers directing the Respondent Nos.2 (District Election Officer Gadag) and 3 (District Election Officer, Hosapete) to grant vehicle and loudspeaker permits to the office bearers of the petitioner on the same footing as RRPPs (Recognised Political Parties) for the purpose of campaigning. Returning Officer to grant vehicle and loudspeaker permit to the petitioner No.2 on the same footing as RRPPs for the purpose of campaigning.”

The Party had approached the court questioning orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayanagar District and the other by the Returning Officer, Hosapete. Both these orders prohibited the petitioners from usage of the private vehicle and loudspeaker. The reason for such prohibition is that the petitioner is not a recognized political party.

Senior Advocate Harish B N appearing for the petitioner contended that Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, deals with the accounting of election expenses after the election is over or once a candidate is nominated for such elections. Section 52, deals with the death of a candidate of a recognised political party before the poll.

He said both these provisions or any other provision in the Act does not empower the electoral officer to prohibit usage of a private vehicle and loudspeaker by a political party towards its campaign.

He also relied on Clause 20 of the Mode Code of Conduct which prescribes that “For availing the benefit of clause (a) of explanation (1) given under sec.77 (1) of R.P.Act, 1951 by the leaders of the political parties, i.e., star campaigners. The permission for the mode of road transport will be issued centrally by the Chief Electoral Officer, irrespective of whether the same vehicle is to be used by any leader for election campaigning throughout the State or different vehicles are to be used by such party leaders in different areas. The Permit will be issued against the name of the star campaigner concerned and shall need to be displayed prominently on the windscreen of the vehicle being used by him/her in any area. The permits so issued by the CEO will be of distinctly different colour from the permits to be issued by the DEOs/ROs for other campaign vehicles of candidates.”

Following which the bench said “A perusal at clause 20 of the Model Code of Conduct does not indicate any such distinction that could be made by the authorities at the stage, at which it is made i.e., before the nominations of the persons contesting elections.”

Accordingly it directed the Election Commission to file its statement of objections to the petition and permitted the party be granted permission to use vehicles with loudspeakers for campaigning.

Case Title: KARNATAKA RASHTRA SAMITHI PARTY & ANR And ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & Others

Case No: WP 8009/2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate Harish B.N for Advocate Pradeep Nayak for petitioner.

Advocate S.R.Dodawad, for respondents