Allowed

Aam Aadmi Party v. State Election Commissioner

Rajasthan HC16 Oct 2020CW/4979/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held that a political party recognized in another state is entitled to reserved symbols in elections within a state where it is not recognized, per Clauses 10 and 12 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The Court set aside the State Election Commission's rejection and directed a fresh examination.

What did the court decide?

Ordered dated 28.8.2019 set aside; direction to reexamine the matter in light of observations made hereinabove and decide accordingly before election date.

Aam Aadmi Party Vs State Election Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4979/2020

¶3

Aam Aadmi Party, Having Its Regional Office At D-82, Shiv Heera Path, Chomu House Colony, C-Scheme, Near Roadways Depot, Jaipur Through Its State Secretary Devendra Shastri S/o Shri Shridhar Shastri Aged About 61 Years Resident Of D-72, Shivheera Path, Choumu House Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Election Commissioner, State Of Rajasthan, Having Its Office At Secretariate, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariate, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. I.J. Kathuria
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. R.B. Mathur

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

16/10/2020

¶13

The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, has prayed to the respondents to allot “Broom Symbol” to the petitioner’s party and also direct them to frame rules and regulations so that in near future, the same issue could not be repeated.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered political party duly registered with the Election Commission of India with a reserved symbol of “Broom”. The petitioner applied for the symbol before the State Election Officer for contesting its members in the election under the Rajasthan Panchayati Act and also under the Municipalities Act. The

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-4979/2020]

¶17

application was moved in terms of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Order of 1968”).

¶18

Learned counsel submits that it is entitled to be allotted symbol in terms of Clause 10 of the Order of 1968, which reads as under:-

¶19

“Clause 10:- If a political party, which is recognised as a State party in some State or States, sets up a candidate at an election in a constituency in any other State in which it is not a recognised State party, then such candidate may, to the exclusion of all other candidates in the constituency, be allotted the symbol reserved for that party in the State or States in which it is a recognised State Party, notwithstanding that such symbol is not specified in the list of free symbols for such other State or Union territory.”

¶20

The respondent – State Election Bureau vide its order dated 28.8.2019 has rejected the application stating that there is no such provision under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994.

¶21

This Court notices that while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner Clause 10 of the Order of 1968 has not been considered. This Court also notices that Clause 12 of the Order of 1968 has also not been considered, which provides as under:

¶22

“Clause12:- Choice of symbols by other candidates and allotment thereof.—(1) Any candidate at an election in a constituency in any State or Union territory, other than— (a) a candidate set up by a National Party; or

¶23

(b) a candidate set up by a political party which is a State Party in that State; or

¶24

(c) a candidate referred to in paragraph 10 or paragraph 10A; shall choose, and shall be allotted, in accordance with the provisions hereafter set out in this paragraph, one of the symbols specified as free symbols for that State or Union territory by notification under paragraph 17.”

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-4979/2020]

¶27

Thus, Clause 12 deals with candidates who are not (a) candidate of a national party or (b) a candidate set up by the political party which is a state party in that State or (c) a candidate referred in Paragraphs 10 or 10A. Thus, candidate of a political party, which may be recognized in another State, would have a right to be given symbol of that party even when he participates in an election in a State where the state party may not be recognized state party.

¶28

The said aspect is required to be considered by the Election Commission and the matter requires to be reexamined. In view thereof, order dated 28.8.2019 is set aside with a direction to reexamine the matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove and decide the representation of the petitioner accordingly afresh before the election date.

¶29

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶31

Karan Bhutani/531/233

Aam Aadmi Party v. State Election Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aam Aadmi Party v. State Election Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I C I C I Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Chhagni Devi and Others

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Teeja Devi and Others

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Kailash Shah and Another

Sudha Kumari D/O Maniram Vs State of Rajasthan

Anguri Bai Meena D/O Babu Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Nizamuddin S/O Gulabuddin , Vs State of Rajasthan