'Unprecedented' : Supreme Court Slams Ladakh Administration For Denying Symbol To JK National Conference In LAHDC-Kargil Elections

The Union Territory of Ladakh has come under the harsh criticism of the Supreme Court for denying the 'plough' symbol for the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC) party in the upcoming Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) election for the Kargil region.

Noting that the plough symbol was reserved for JKNC by the Election Commission of India because of its status as a recognized state party of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Court held that its demand for the symbol was "legitimate and just".

The Court came down heavily on the Ladakh Administration for notifying the LAHDC elections while sitting over the representation made by JKNC seeking the allotment of the reserved symbol.

“The Appellants(Ladakh Admin), while sitting on the representation of R1(JKNC), went ahead and notified the elections on 02/05.08.2023. We are unable to appreciate such conduct. This recalcitrance to decide in time speaks volumes. Instances like these raise serious questions", the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted.  The Ladakh Administration had filed the special leave petition challenging the direction passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh to notify the 'plough' symbol for JKNC.

Elections should be free, fair and transparent

In its judgment, the Court highlighted the fundamental principles of democracy and the necessity for impartiality and timeliness in election processes. It observed :

“Elections to any office/body are required to be free, fair and transparent. Elections lie at the core of democracy. The authority entrusted by law to hold/conduct such elections is to be completely independent of any extraneous influence/consideration. It is surprising that the Union Territory of Ladakh not only denied R1 the Plough symbol but even upon timely intervention by the learned Single Judge, has left no stone unturned not only to resist but also frustrate a cause simply by efflux of time.”

The Court took a firm stance against the appellants who had not complied with the orders of the High Court to allot the symbol for JKNC. It opined  :

“Having chosen, with eyes open, to not comply with successive orders of the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench, both of which were passed well in time, such as not to stall/delay the notified election schedule, the Appellants cannot be permitted to plead that interference by us at this late juncture should not be forthcoming.”

The Court also highlighted the challenges faced by R1 due to the unavailability of its recognized symbol while observing :

“No candidate/representative affiliated with R1 could have filled up the form as the Plough symbol was neither a reserved symbol nor a free symbol, and thus, could not have been opted for by any candidate when filing the nomination form. The serious consequence was that R1’s identity as a political party was eclipsed, right before the election to the LAHDC, where it was the incumbent party in power.”

It further said that the authorities might have been "overconfident" that the Courts would not interfere in the election process and termed it a "misconceived notion".

"The situation emanating herein is, in a manner of speaking, unprecedented. With a sense of anguish, it would not be wrong to say that the instant judgment has been invited upon themselves by the Appellants. The orders of the High Court, in our considered opinion, were in aid of the electoral process, and no fault can be found therewith", the Court observed. Not stopping there, the Court imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on the UT of Ladakh.

In light of the above, the Court held that J&K NC was entitled to the “plough” symbol and set aside the LADHC election notification. The Court further directed the authorities to notify the election afresh within seven days.

Other stories about the judgment can be read here.

Case title: UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference

Citation:  2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Click here to read the judgment