9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1407 - SC - Indian LawsNon allocation of the Plough symbol to the writ petitioner for its candidates to contest the then-upcoming General Elections of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil - HELD THAT - 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 request for allotment of the Plough symbol by R1 was bonafide, legitimate and just, for the plain reason that in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (which included the present Union Territory of Ladakh), it was a recognized State Party having been allotted the Plough symbol. Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and the creation of two new Union Territories, namely the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh, though the ECI had not notified R1 as a State Party for the Union Territory of Ladakh, it cannot be simpliciter that R1 was not entitled for the allotment of plough symbol to it, in the factual background. What is also clear is that the Appellants are attempting to approbate and reprobate, which this Court will not countenance. In the present case, there is no conflict with any other stakeholder for the reason that the Plough symbol is neither a symbol exclusively allotted to any National or State Party nor one of the symbols shown in the list of free symbols. Thus, there was and is no impediment in such symbol being granted to R1. This is also fortified in the factual setting of the Plough symbol being the reserved symbol for R1 in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and even for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, as it now exists, where the same symbol stands allotted to it. The entire election process, initiated pursuant to Notification dated 02.08.2023 issued by the Administration of Union Territory of Ladakh, Election Department, UT Secretariat, Ladakh, under S.O.53 published vide No.Secy/Election/2023/290-301 dated 05.08.2023 stands set aside. A fresh Notification shall be issued within seven days from today for elections to constitute the 5 th Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil. R1 is declared entitled to the exclusive allotment of the Plough symbol for candidates proposed to be put up by it. This appeal stands dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited in the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-allocation of the Plough symbol to the respondent party for LAHDC elections. 2. Applicability of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 to LAHDC elections. 3. Jurisdiction and powers of the Election Authority of the Union Territory of Ladakh versus the Election Commission of India (ECI). 4. The effect of the election process reaching an advanced stage on the relief sought by the respondent. 5. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions in election matters. Summary: 1. Non-allocation of the Plough symbol to the respondent party for LAHDC elections: The controversy arose due to the non-allocation of the Plough symbol to the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (R1) for the upcoming General Elections of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil (LAHDC). The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to notify the reserved symbol (plough) already allotted to R1. The Division Bench upheld this interim order. The Supreme Court noted that R1 had a legitimate claim to the Plough symbol, as it was a recognized State Party in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. 2. Applicability of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 to LAHDC elections: The appellants contended that the 1968 Order did not apply to LAHDC elections, which are governed by the 1995 Rules. However, the Court found that the provisions of the 1968 Order could be used as guidelines for the exercise of executive power in the absence of specific rules. The Court emphasized that the Plough symbol was neither a free symbol nor allotted to any other party, and thus could be granted to R1. 3. Jurisdiction and powers of the Election Authority of the Union Territory of Ladakh versus the Election Commission of India (ECI): The appellants argued that the ECI does not have authority over LAHDC elections, which are conducted by the Election Authority of the Union Territory of Ladakh. The Court noted that the ECI's communication allowed R1 to avail of the concession under Paragraph 10 of the 1968 Order. The Court found that the appellants' shifting stand on the ECI's role indicated arbitrariness and capriciousness. 4. The effect of the election process reaching an advanced stage on the relief sought by the respondent: The appellants argued that since the election process had reached an advanced stage, no relief could be granted to R1. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the appellants had not complied with the High Court's orders and could not benefit from their own non-compliance. The Court emphasized that systemic delay should not defeat a just cause. 5. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions in election matters: The Court upheld the High Court's power under Article 226 to issue directions in election matters, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions. The Court referred to various precedents to assert that Constitutional Courts have the authority to ensure justice and maintain a level-playing field in elections. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, set aside the election process initiated by the Notification dated 02.08.2023, and directed a fresh notification for LAHDC elections within seven days. The Court declared R1 entitled to the exclusive allotment of the Plough symbol for its candidates. Costs of Rs.1,00,000/- were imposed on the appellants, to be deposited in the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund. The pending writ petition and contempt proceedings were directed to be disposed of or proceeded with expeditiously.
|
