AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India (respondent No.1).
Petitioner before us is a State recognized political party viz., Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS).
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents (Election Commission of India) to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2022 submitted in the backdrop of the ensuing bye-election to the No.93 Munugode assembly constituency.
Be it stated that petitioner had submitted the representation dated 10.10.2022 to the Election Commission of India and also to Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana State seeking deletion of certain identical symbols from the list of free symbols on the ground that those symbols are similar, identical and look alike to the election symbol of the petitioner, which is a ‘car’. In the said representation, specific reference has been made to the list of free symbols at serial No.29 (camera), serial No.38 (chapati roller), serial No.56 (dolli), serial No.135 (road roller), serial No.151 (soap dish), serial No.166 (television), serial No.144 (sewing machine) and serial No.149 (ship).
Grievance expressed by the petitioner is that above symbols when displayed on EVM machines would look alike to the electoral symbol of the petitioner which may confuse the voters leading to unintended voting thereby affecting a free and fair electoral process. With the further grievance that the said representation was not being considered by the Election Commission of India, the related writ petition came to be filed.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that election symbol of a political party has a great significance in an electoral contest. In this connection, he has referred to Order 8 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and also to a decision of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 318 more particularly, to paragraph 17 thereof, which says that there can be no doubt that a symbol, particularly in case of an established political party, is not only having a political implication but also has an emotional angle attached to it; this is apart from the fact that in India, large population of which is rural, uneducated or at times illiterate, such electorate would naturally have a tendency to identify a party or its candidates by its symbols.
Learned Senior counsel has further referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Samajvadi Forward Bloc Party v. Election Commission of India AIR 2019 TS 46 to contend that in a dispute of this nature, writ petitions have been entertained by this Court.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India (respondent No.1) submits that representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2022 was rejected by the Election Commission of India on 17.10.2022 which decision has been communicated to the petitioner. He submits that Election Commission of India has carefully gone through the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, but found no substance therein. He further submits that on an earlier occasion, based on the objection raised by the petitioner, notification was issued by the Election Commission of India on 23.09.2021 clarifying that serial No.4 (auto rickshaw), serial No.83 (hat), serial No.91 (iron) and serial No.177 (truck) of the list of free symbols would not be available in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Election Commission of India had considered the apprehension expressed by the petitioner and after due deliberation has allowed the symbols at serial No.29 (camera), serial No.38 (chapati roller), serial No.56 (dolli), serial No.135 (road roller), serial No.144 (sewing machine), serial No.145 (ship), serial No.151 (soap dish) and serial No.166 (television ).
Learned Standing Counsel submits that yesterday was the date fixed for withdrawal of nomination and allotment of symbols to the remaining candidates. He submits that altogether 47 candidates are in fray in respect of bye-election to the No.93 Munugode assembly constituency and as per the request made by individual candidates, available symbols have been allotted to them. According to him, it is the Election Commission of India which distributes the symbols. Symbols are allotted on claim of the candidates subject to availability of such symbols as per Rule 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Finally, he submits that this writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the bar under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India since electoral process has been set in motion by the press note issued by the Election Commission of India on 03.10.2022. Referring to the decision of this Court in Samajvadi Forward Bloc Party v. Election Commission of India (AIR 2019 TS 46 supra), learned Standing Counsel submits that as a matter of fact, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court.
In response to the above submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection order was served upon him only during the course of arguments. He therefore, submits that Election Commission of India may be directed to consider afresh the grievance expressed by the petitioner. He further submits that the election symbol ‘road roller’ was deleted by the Election Commission of India vide notification dated 04.11.2011 but has been introduced again. Finally, he submits that the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India would not apply inasmuch as petitioner has not challenged the electoral process. All that the petitioner seeks is that Election Commission of India being a constitutional authority should ensure that the electoral process is conducted in a free and a fair manner and that all steps are taken to remove confusion in the minds of the voters.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
We have also noted the grievance expressed by the petitioner which basically is that representation submitted by it on 10.10.2022 was not being attended to. Representation dated 10.10.2022 was filed for deletion of certain symbols which according to the petitioner has the propensity to confuse voters with the election symbol of the petitioner i.e., ‘car’.
From a perusal of the rejection order dated 07.10.2022, which has been placed before the Court by the learned Standing Counsel, it is seen that according to Election Commission of India, the symbols- camera, dolli, road roller, television and sewing machine were already in the list of free symbols when petitioner was recognized as a State political party and that petitioner had opted to have ‘car’ as its reserved symbol. Election Commission of India has further recorded that on the request of the petitioner dated 27.12.2018, and 07.02.2019, it had vide letter dated 25.02.2019 deleted the symbols ‘truck’ and ‘iron’ from the list of free symbols in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as those two symbols were found to have similarity with the symbol of the petitioner i.e., ‘car’. Insofar the symbols, camera, chapatti roller, soap dish, dolli, road roller, television and sewing machine are concerned, it is stated that those were already in the list of free symbols in December, 2018 when the petitioner had requested for revision of the design of its symbol (car), which was approved by the Election Commission of India on 25.02.2019. Insofar the symbol ‘ship’ is concerned, it is stated that after a comparative analysis, it has been observed that the electoral symbol ‘ship’ is sufficiently distinct from the petitioner’s symbol i.e., ‘car’.
From the above, it is seen that Election Commission of India had considered the representation of the petitioner and by a reasoned order dated 17.10.2022, rejected the same. It is not for the writ court to take a decision as to the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Election Commission of India as expressed in the communication/order dated 17.10.2022. Representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Election Commission of India with due application of mind and was thereafter rejected by a speaking order.
That apart, now that the electoral process for bye-elections to No.93 Munugode assembly constituency has been set in motion, we are of the view that further deliberation on this writ petition is not warranted.
Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.