1985 (9) TMI 347 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
2. Power of the Election Commission to issue the Symbols Order.
3. Impact of the Symbols Order on the emergence of political parties and alleged malpractices.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Symbols Order:
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (Symbols Order) issued by the Election Commission (Commission) u/s Article 32 of the Constitution. The principal contention was that the Symbols Order, being legislative in character, could not have been issued by the Commission as it is not entrusted by law with the power to issue such an order.

2. Power of the Election Commission to Issue the Symbols Order:
The Court examined the relevant provisions of law, including Articles 324, 327, and 328 of the Constitution, and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act). It was noted that Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Commission. The Court held that the Commission is empowered to issue the Symbols Order under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. The Court cited previous judgments, including *Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India* and *All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shillong v. Captain M.A. Sangma*, which upheld the Commission's power to issue the Symbols Order.

3. Impact of the Symbols Order on the Emergence of Political Parties and Alleged Malpractices:
The petitioner argued that the emergence of numerous political parties and the resultant malpractices were due to the provisions of the Symbols Order. The Court dismissed this contention, stating that the existence of political parties is implicit in the democratic form of government adopted by the country. The Court emphasized that political parties are necessary for the functioning of a Westminster-type democracy. The Court also noted that the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, added by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985, acknowledges the existence of political parties.

The Court concluded that the Symbols Order does not suffer from a lack of authority on the part of the Commission and dismissed the petition, stating that the alleged evils and malpractices are not due to the Symbols Order but can be addressed by appealing to the conscience of the nation.

Conclusion:
The petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the power of the Election Commission to issue the Symbols Order and found no merit in the contention that the Order was responsible for the emergence of political parties and alleged malpractices.