Delhi HC dismisses Janata Party's plea challenging constitutionality of election symbols order

New Delhi [India], January 17 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order of 1968, which sought to have it declared 'unconstitutional' and ultra vires the Constitution.
The petition, filed by the Janata Party stated that the order was 'discriminatory', as it contended that symbols allotted to registered political parties are inseparable from the party, serving as a key part of its identity and public recognition.
The petition further claimed that the classification and denial of symbols to unregistered parties was unreasonable, unjust, and unnatural, warranting the order's quashing.
The bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, dismissed the plea, noting that the issue had already been addressed by the Supreme Court.
Advocate Siddhant Kumar, representing the Election Commission of India (ECI), argued that the issue raised had already been addressed in multiple court decisions.
The bench, while passing its order, agreed with ECI's contention, stating that the matter had been conclusively settled by authoritative Supreme Court rulings. The court referred to the case SS v ECI, reiterating that political parties cannot claim symbols as their exclusive property, and that the Election Symbols Order clearly allows for the loss of a symbol in the event of poor electoral performance. Consequently, the petition challenging the constitutionality of the order was rejected, said the bench.
The petition argued that as a national party (Janta Party), it had been allotted the symbol of a plough on the shoulder of a farmer. However, this symbol was now denied to the party, which had been reclassified as a registered unrecognised party. The petitioner contended that it was being forced to contest elections without its original symbol and instead had to choose from a list of available free symbols.
The petitioner argued that the classification of political parties as "registered and recognised" versus "registered and unrecognised" is baseless, unreasonable, and contradictory. It questioned how a party that is registered can be labeled as unrecognised.
Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the symbol, which is central to the party's identity and essence, was unjustly denied and taken away after the party was reclassified as a registered unrecognised political party. (ANI)