Madras High Court Dismisses PIL on Election Symbol Misuse
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to frame appropriate guidelines to prevent the misuse of reserved election symbols allotted to recognised political parties.
Petitioner's Allegations on Symbol Misuse
The petitioner, advocate M L Ravi, alleged that candidates affiliated with other political parties are being permitted to contest elections using the reserved symbols allocated to major recognised parties. According to the petitioner, this practice violates legal mandates that restrict the use of reserved symbols only to members of the respective political parties.
Ravi argued that smaller alliance partners are allowed to contest under such reserved symbols, which constitutes a breach of regulations. He emphasized that this leads to serious misrepresentation before returning officers and the electorate.
"This practice results in a serious misrepresentation before the returning officer as well as the electorate, since Form B contains a certification that the candidate is a member of the issuing political party," the petitioner stated. "When such certification is made in respect of a candidate who belongs to another political party, it creates a legal inconsistency and misleads the voters regarding the true political affiliation of the candidate."
Court's Firm Rejection and Reasoning
Refusing to entertain the plea, the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan firmly dismissed the PIL. The bench asserted that such issues can only be challenged through an election petition after the conclusion of the election process.
"Where is the violation. Please point out. You cannot because there are no violations. Without any ground, without substantiating any grievance how can you file such a petition, this should be dismissed with cost," the court observed during the proceedings.
The bench clarified that a cause of action arises only after the election concludes. "Only after the conclusion of the election cause of action arises. If you are able to justify that the candidate belongs to a different party then only an election petition can be filed that too after the conclusion of the election," the court added, outlining the proper legal recourse.
ECI's Response and Previous Dismissal
During the hearing, counsel for the Election Commission, Niranjan Rajagopalan, pointed out that the petitioner had previously filed a similar petition, which was also dismissed by the court. This historical context reinforced the court's stance on the matter.
Constitutional Context and Voter Rights
The petitioner highlighted the constitutional significance of free and fair elections, noting that they form part of the basic structure of the constitution. He referenced the Supreme Court's recognition in the PUCL case, emphasizing that voters have a fundamental right to know the true background and political affiliation of candidates.
This dismissal underscores the judiciary's adherence to procedural norms in electoral disputes, directing aggrieved parties to follow the established legal framework of election petitions post-elections rather than seeking pre-emptive guidelines through PILs.
