Madras High Court Directs ECI To Register Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam Party

Justice Anita Sumanth said that while the word Deiveega also meant “Godly”, such an interpretation would not sit well with the name of the party, read in full. Thus, using the rule of Noscitur a sociis, a facet of the principle Ejusdem generis, the court noted as under:

"A Kazhagam is an association. The words Desiya and Murpokku connote ‘patriotism’ and ‘progress’, respectively. Thus, the meaning of the word ‘Deiveega’ seen in the company of the words Desiya and Murpokku, would be ‘divinity’ which is not an overtly religious term. True, one facet of the word ‘Deiveega’ is ‘Godly’. However, such an interpretation does not sit well in the context of the name of the petitioner, read in full."

The court also added that the use of the word Deiveega does not have any religious connotation and in fact must be understood as placing patriotism in the highest level of religion.

"After all, patriotism could well be the highest form of religion and Indian culture and ethos revere the Country, placing her on an exalted pedestal, as Mother India. The use of the word Deiveega in the name of the petitioner thus hardly contains or indicates any religious connotation, stricto senso, and must be understood only in this context."

The plea was filed by the party after the Election Commission rejected its application for registration for the purpose of conducting elections. The petitioner submitted that the proposed name neither intends to nor conveys any religious connotation. It was also contended that the order of rejection by the ECI was in violation of the principles of natural justice as an opportunity for a hearing was not granted.

The court noted that though Section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 does not specify any detailed parameter with regard to name, in 2005, the Election Commission had taken a policy decision to the effect that no political party with a religious name or connotation could be registered. The court also noted that an order was also passed in this regard in 2014 and in 2017 the commission had asked all Chief Electoral Officers in the States and Union Territories to comply with the same.

The court further noted that though the 2014 order does not have a statutory backing, Article 324 of the Constitution gives powers to the Commission to regulate all matters in relation to superintendence, direction and control of elections. Relying upon precedents of the Supreme Court, the court noted that as per Article 324, the orders of the Election Commission would bind all parties and would have statutory force.

"In light of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, I have no doubt that the power of R1 to issue orders in the nature of Executive instructions is wide and expansive in matters concerning regulation of elections and the preliminary objection is answered in favour of the respondents," the court said.

Thus, the court held that though the ECI had powers to decide against registration of parties with religious connotation, in the present case there was no such religious connotation.

Case Title: Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam v Election Commission of India and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 148

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.G.Ethirajulu

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan