PETITIONER:
KANHIYALAL OMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
R.K. TRIVEDI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/09/1985
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION:
1986 AIR 111 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 1
1985 SCC (4) 628 1985 SCALE (2)1370
ACT:
Constitution of India 1950 - Articles 324 and 327
Representation of People Act 1951, Section 169 Conduct of
Election Rules 1961, Rules 5 and 10 & election Symbols
(Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968.
Symbols Order - Whether legislative in character -
Election Commission whether competent to issue Order.
Words & Phrases :
'Superintendence, direction and control' - Meaning of
Article 324 (1) Constitution of India 1950.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner in his Writ Petition to this Court
challenged the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment)
Order, 1968 contending that as it is legislative in
character lt could not have been issued by the Election
Commission because the Commission is not entrusted by law
the power to issue such an Order regarding the
specification, reservation and allotment of symbols that may
be chosen by the candidates at elections in parliamentary
and assembly constituencies, and that there is no provision,
constitutional or legal which justifies the recognition of
political parties for the purposes of election. It was
further contended that Article 324 of the Constitution which
vests the power of superintendence, direction and control of
all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of a
State in the Election Commission cannot be construed as
conferring power on the Commission to issue the Symbols
Order, and the Central Government which had been delegated
the power to make rules under & Section 169 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 could not further
delegate the power to make any subordinate legislation in
the form of the Symbols Order to the Commission, without
itself being empowered by The Act to make such further
delegation.
Dismissing the Writ Petition,
2
^
HELD: 1. In exercise of the powers conferred Under
Article 324 of the Constitution, read with rule 5 and rule
10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 the Election
Commission of India issued the Election Symbols (Reservation
and Allotment) Order in the year 1968 for the specification,
reservation, choice and allotment of symbols, for the
recognition of political parties in relation thereto and for
matters connected therewith. [15 C-D]
2. It cannot be said that any of the provisions of the
Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968
suffers from want of authority on the part of the Election
Commission which has issued it. [16 F]
3. The power of the Election Commission to recognise
political parties and to decide disputes arising amongst
them or between splinter groups within a political party has
been upheld in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India,
[1972] 2 S.C.R. 318. It also upholds the power of the
Commission to issue the Symbols Order and the power to issue
the Symbols Order was held to be comprehended in the power
of 'superintendence, direction and control' of elections
vested in the Election Commission. [11G; 14A]
4. Even if the powers of the Election Commission
mentioned in the Symbols Order are not traceable to the
Representation of People Act, 1951 or the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 the power of the Commission under
Article 324(1) of the Constitution which are plenary in
character would encompass all such provisions. Article 324.
Of the Constitution operates in areas left unoccupied by
legislation and the words 'superintendence' 'direction', and
'control' as well as 'conduct of all elections' are the
broadest terms which would include the power to make all
such provisions. While construing the expression
'superintendence, direction and control' in Article 324(1),
one has to remember that every norm which lays down a rule
of conduct cannot possibly be elevated to the position of
legislation or delegated legislation. There are some
authorities or persons in certain grey areas who may be
sources of rules of conduct and who at the same time cannot
be equated to authorities or persons who can make law, in
the strict sense in which it is understood in jurisprudence.
A direction may mean an Order issued to a particular
individual or a precept which many may have to follow. It
may be a specific or a general order. The source of power in
this case is the Constitution, the highest law of the land,
which is the repository and source of all legal powers and
any power granted by the Constitution for a specific purpose
should be construed liberally 80 that the object for which
the power is
3
All Party Hill Leaders' Conference Shillong v. Captain
M.A. Sangma & Ors. [1978] 1 S.C.R. 393, Roop Lal Sathi v.
Nachhattar Singh [1983] 1 S.C.R. 702, Mohinder Singh Gill &
Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 272 and A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai & Ors.
[1984] 3 S.C.R. 74, referred to.
5. Till recently the Constitution of India had not
expressly referred to the existence of political parties,
but by the amendments made to it by the Constitution (Fifty-
Second Amendment) Act, 1985 there is now a clear recognition
of political parties by the constitution. The Tenth Schedule
to the Constitution which was added by the above Amending
Act acknowledges the existence of political parties and sets
out the circumstances when a member of Parliament or of the
State Legislature would be deemed to have defected from his
political party and would thereby be disqualified for being
a member of the House concerned. It is therefore, difficult
to say that the reference to recognition, registration etc.
Of political parties by the Symbols Order is unauthorised
and against the political system adopted by our country. [11
E-F]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 11738 of
1985.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Gobind Mukhoty, R.P.. Gupta and Miss Kirti Gupta for
the Petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. In this petition filed under Article
32 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the
constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation
and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Symbols Order’ which is issued by the Election Commission
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’). The principal
contention urged by the petitioner in support of his
contention is that the Symbols Order which is legislative in
character could not have been issued by the Commission
because the commission is not entrusted by law the power to
issue such an order regarding the specification, reservation
and allotment of symbols that may be chosen by the
candidates at elections in parliamentary and assembly
constituencies. It is further urged that Article 324 of the
Constitution which vests the power of superintendence,
direction
4
and control of all elections to Parliament and to the
Legislature of a State in the Commission cannot be construed
as conferring the power on the Commission to issue the
Symbols Order .
It is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of
law having a bearing on the above question at the outset for
a proper appreciation of the contentions urged on behalf of
the petitioner. Article 324 (1) of the Constitution reads
thus:
“324.(1) The superintendence, direction and
control of the preparation of the electoral rolls
for, and the conduct of, all elections to
Parliament and to the Legislature of every State
and of elections to the offices of President and
Vice-President held under this Constitution shall
be vested in a Commission (referred to in this
Constitution as the Election Commission).
Articles 327 and 328 of the Constitution which vest the
power of making provisions with respect to elections on
Parliament and the Legislatures in the States read as
follows :
“327. Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution, Parliament may from time to time by
law make provision with respect to all matters
relating to, or in connection with, elections to
either House of Parliament or to the House or
either House of the Legislature of, a State
including the preparation of electoral rolls, the
delimitation of constituencies and all other
matters necessary for securing the due
constitution of such House or Houses.
328. Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution and in 80 far as provision in that
behalf is not made by Parliament, the Legislature
of a State may from time to time by law make
provision with respect to all matters relating to,
or in connection with, the elections to the House
or either House of the Legislature of the State
including the preparation of electoral rolls and
all other matters necessary for securing the due
constitution of such House or Houses.”
Article 327 of the Constitution confers the power on
Parliament to make by law provision with respect to all
matters
5
relating to, or in connection with, elections to either
House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the
Legislature of a State including the preparation of
electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and all
other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of
such House or Houses subject to the provisions of the
Constitution. Article 328 of the Constitution confers
similar power on the Legislature of a State to make
provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in
connection with, the elections to the House or either House
of the Legislature of the State including the preparation of
electoral rolls and all other matters necessary for securing
the due constitution of such House or Houses subject to the
provisions of the Constitution and in so far as provision in
that behalf is not made by Parliament. In exercise of the
power conferred by Article 327 of the Constitution
Parliament has enacted the Representation of the People Act,
1951 (43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)
providing for the conduct of elections to the Houses of
Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of
each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for
membership of those Houses, the corrupt practices and other
offences at or in connection with such elections and the
decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in
connection with such elections. Section 169 of the Act
empowers the Central Government to promulgate rules, after
consultation with the Commission, for carrying out the
purposes of the Act. In exercise of the said power the
Central Government has promulgated the Conduct of Elections
Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Rules’).
Rules 5 and 10 of the Rules which are material for the
purposes of this case read thus:
5. Symbols for elections in parliamentary and
assembly constituencies – (1) The Election
Commission shall, by notification in the Gazette
of India, and in the Official Gazette of each
State, specify the symbols that may be chosen by
candidates at elections in Parliamentary or
assembly constituencies and the restrictions to
which their choice shall be subject.
(2) Subject to any general or special direction
issued by the Election Commission either under
sub-rule (4) or sub-rule (5) of rule 10, where at
any such election, more nomination papers than one
are delivered by or on behalf of a candidate, the
declaration as to symbols made in the nomination
paper first delivered, and no other declaration as
to
6
symbols shall be taken into consideration under
rule 10 even if that nomination paper has been
rejected.
10. Preparation of list of contesting candidates
(4) At an election in a parliamentary or assembly
constituency, where a poll becomes necessary, the
returning officer shall consider the choice of
symbols expressed by the contesting candidates in
their nomination papers and shall, subject to any
general or special direction issued in this behalf
by the Election Commission –
(a) allot a different symbol to each contesting
candidate in conformity, as far as practicable,
with his choice; and
(b) if more contesting candidates than one have
indicated their preference for the same symbol,
decide by lot to which of such candidates the
symbol will be allotted.
(5) The allotment by the returning officer of any
symbol to a candidate shall be final except where
it is inconsistent with any directions issued by
the Election Commission in this behalf in which
case the Election Commission may revise the
allotment in such manner as it thinks fit.
(6) Every candidate or his election agent shall
forth with be informed of the symbol allotted to
the candidate and be supplied with a specimen
thereof by the returning officer.”
Sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Rules empowers the
commission to specify by a notification in the Gazette of
India and in the Official Gazette of each State, the symbols
that may be chosen by candidates at elections in
Parliamentary or assembly constituencies and the
restrictions to which their choice shall be subject. Sub-
rule (4) of rule 10 of the Rules provides that at an
election in a parliamentary or assembly constituency, where
a poll becomes necessary, the returning officer shall
consider the choice of symbols expressed by the contesting
candidates in their nomination papers and shall subject to
any general or special direction issued in this behalf by
the Commission allot a
7
different symbol to each contesting candidate in conformity,
as far as practicable, with his choice and if more
contesting candidates than one have indicated their
preference for the same symbol, decide by lot to which of
such candidates the symbol will be allotted. Sub-rule (5) of
rule 10 of the Rules provides that the allotment by
returning officer of any symbol to a candidate shall be
final except where it is inconsistent with any directions
issued by the Commission in this behalf in which case the
Commission may revise the allotment in such manner as it
thinks fit. Under sub-rule (6) of rule 10 of the Rules every
candidate or his election agent should be informed forthwith
the symbol allotted to the candidate and is entitled to be
supplied with a specimen thereof. Purporting to exercise its
power under Article 324 of the Constitution read with rule 5
and rule 10 of the Rules, the Commission issued the symbols
Order in the year 1968 which is impugned in this petition.
The Preamble to the Symbols Order reads thus :
“S.O. 2959 dated 31st August, 1968 – Whereas the
superintendence, direction and control of all
elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of
every State are vested by the Constitution of
India in the Election Commission of India;
And, whereas, it is necessary and expedient to
provide in the interests of purity of election to
the House of the People and the Legislative
Assembly of every State and in the interests of
the conduct of-such elections in a fair and
efficient manner, for the specification,
reservation, choice and allotment of symbols, for
the recognition of political parties in relation
thereto and for matters connected therewith.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution, read
with rule 5 and rule 10 of the Conduct of
Elections Rules, 1961, and all other powers
enabling it in this behalf, the Election
Commission of India hereby makes the following
Order.”
The expression ‘political party’ is defined in
Paragraph 2(1)(h) of the Symbols Order thus :
2.(1)(h) – ‘Political party’ means an association
or body of individual citizens of India registered
with the Commission as a political party under
paragraph 3
8
and includes a political party deemed to be
registered with the Commission under the proviso
of sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph;”
Paragraph 3 of the Symbols Order provides that any
association or body of individual citizens of India calling
itself a political party and intending to avail itself of
the provisions of the Symbols Order shall make an
application to the Commission for its registration as a
party for the purposes of the Symbols Order. Sub-paragraphs
(2), (3) and (4) of paragraph 3 of the Symbols Order provide
for the manner in which such applications should be made by
associations and bodies calling themselves as political
parties for registration with the Commission. m at
paragraph empowers the Commission to consider all relevant
particulars and to decide whether the association or body
should be registered as a political party or not and its
decision in that regard is stated to be final. Paragraph 4
of the Symbols Order provides that in every contested
election a symbol shall be allotted to a contesting
candidate in accordance with the provisions of the Symbols
Order and different symbols shall be allotted to different
contesting candidates at an election in the same
constituency. m e symbols specified by the Commission are
classified into two categories by paragraph 5 of the Symbols
Order. They are either reserved or free. A reserved symbol
is a symbol which is reserved for a recognised political
party for exclusive allotment to contesting candidates set
up by that party. A free symbol is a symbol other than a
reserved symbol Paragraph 6 of the Symbols Order provides
for the classification of the political parties, into
recognised political parties and unrecognised political
parties. Amongst the recognised political parties according
to the Symbols Order there are two categories, namely,
national parties and the State parties. The Symbols Order
further provides for the determination of the question
whether a candidate has been set up by a political party or
not. It deals with the power of the Commission to issue
instructions to unrecognised political parties for their
expeditious recognition on fulfillment of conditions
specified in paragraph 6. The power of the commission in
relation to splinter groups or rival sections of the
recognised political party and its power in case of
amalgamation of two or more political parties are dealt with
in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Symbols Order. Under
paragraph 17 of the Symbols Order the Commission is required
to publish by one or more notifications in the Gazette of
India lists specifying the national parties and the symbols
respectively reserved for them, the State parties, the
State or States in which they are
9
State parties and the symbols respectively reserved for them
in such State or States, unrecognised political parties and
the State or States in which they function and the free
symbols for each State. Every such list is required to be
kept up-to-date, as far as possible. Under paragraph 18 of
the Symbols Order the Commission has reserved to itself the
power to issue instructions and directions for the
clarification of any of the provisions of the Symbols Order,
for the removal of any difficulty which may arise in
relation to the implementation of any such provisions and in
relation to any matter with respect to the reservation and
allotment of symbols and recognition of political parties,
for which the Symbols Order makes no provision or makes
insufficient provision and provision is in the opinion of
the Commission necessary for the smooth and orderly conduct
of elections.
The petitioner claims to be a convener of a social
organisation named “SAPRYA” situated at 67/68, Daulat Ganj,
Kanpur (U.P.) which is stated to have been established for
the purposes of propagating ‘National truth’ and for
acquainting the people of India about the ideals cherished
by it. The petitioner is aggrieved by the emergence of a
large number of political parties at the national level and
at the State level which according to him has prejudiced
seriously the ideals of a democratic country. He has
referred in the course of the petition to the various acts
committed by the several political parties which according
to him are highly detrimental to the interests of the
country. He contends that the emergence of these political
parties is due to the provisions contained in the Symbols
Order which provides for the registration of political
parties, reservation and allotment of symbols in favour of
various political parties. It is contended by the petitioner
that the Symbols Order is liable to be struck down on the
ground that the Commission is not empowered to issue it
either under the Constitution or the Act and the Rules made
thereunder. It is his contention that there is no provision,
constitutional or legal, which justifies the recognition of
political parties for purpose of elections.
The constitutional scheme with regard to the holding of
the elections to Parliament and the State Legislatures is
quite clear. First, the Constitution has provided for the
establishment of a high power body to be incharge of the
elections to Parliament and the State Legislatures and of
elections to the offices of President and Vice President.
That body is the Commission. Article 324 of the Constitution
contains detailed
10
provisions regarding the constitution of the Commission and
its general powers. The Commission consists of the Chief
Election Commissioner who is appointed by the President and
it may also consist such number of other Election
Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to
time fix, who are also to be appointed by the President.
When Election Commissioners are appointed, the Chief
Election Commissioner becomes the Chairman of the
Commission. There is provision for the appointment of
Regional Commissioners to assist the Commission. In order to
ensure the independence and impartiality of the Commission,
it is provided that the Chief Election Commissioner shall
not be removed from his office except in like manner and on
the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
and that the conditions of service of the Chief Election
Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after
his appointment. An Election Commissioner or a Regional
Commissioner cannot be removed from office except on the
recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner. The
superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of
elections referred to in Article 324(1) of the Constitution
are entrusted to the Commission. The words
‘superintendence’, ‘direction’ and ‘control’ are wide enough
to include all powers necessary for the smooth conduct of
elections. It is, however, seen that Parliament has been
vested with the power to make law under Article 327 of the
Constitution read with Entry 72 of List I of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution with respect to all matters
relating to the elections to either House of Parliament or
to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State
subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Subject to
the provisions of the Constitution and any law made in that
behalf by Parliament, the Legislature of a State may under
Article 328 read with Entry 37 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution make law relating to the
elections to the House or Houses of Legislature of that
State. The general powers of superintendence, direction and
control of the elections vested in the Commission under
Article 324(1) naturally are subject to any law made either
under Article 327 or under Article 328 of the Constitution.
The word ‘election’ in Article 324 is used in a wide sense
so as to include the entire process of election which
consists of several stages and it embraces many steps, some
of which may have an important bearing on the result of the
process. India is a country which consists of millions of
voters. Although they are quite conscious of their duties
politically, unfortunately, a large percentage of them are
still illiterate. Hence there is need for using symbols to
denote the candidates who contest elections so that the
illiterate voter
11
may cast his vote in secrecy in favour of the candidate of
his choice by identifying him with the help of the symbol
printed on the ballot paper against his name.
It is true that till recently the Constitution did not
expressly refer to the existence of political parties. But
their existence is implicit in the nature of democratic form
of Government which our country has adopted. The use of a
symbol, be it a donkey or an elephant, does give rise to an
unifying effect amongst the people with a common political
and economic programme and ultimately helps in the
establishment of a Westminster type of democracy which we
have adopted with a Cabinet responsible to the elected
representatives of the people who constitute the Lower
House. The political parties have to be there if the present
system of Government should succeed and the chasm dividing
the political parties should be so profound that a change of
administration would in fact be a revolution disguised under
a constitutional procedure. It is no doubt a paradox that
while the country as a whole yields to no other in its
corporate sense of unity and continuity, the working parts
of its political system are so organized on party basis in
other words on systematized differences and unresolved
conflicts. That is the essence of our system and it
facilitates the setting up of a Government by the majority.
Although till recently the Constitution had not expressly
referred to the existence of political parties, by the
amendments made to it by the Constitution (Fifty-Second
Amendment) Act, 1985 there is now a clear recognition of the
political parties by the Constitution. The Tenth Schedule to
the Constitution which is added by the above amending Act
acknowledges the existence of political parties and sets out
the circumstances when a member of Parliament or of the
State Legislature would be deemed to have defected from his
political party and would thereby be disqualified for being
a member of the House concerned. Hence it is difficult to
say that the reference to recognition, registration etc. of
political parties by the Symbols Order is unauthorised and
against the political system adopted by our country.
Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order which dealt with the
power of the Commission in relation to splinter groups or
rival sections of a recognised political party came up for
consideration before this Court in Sadiq Ali & Anr. etc. v.
Election Commission of India & Ors. etc. [1972] 2 S.C.R.
318.
The Court observed in that case at pages 341-343 thus:
12
“It would follow from what has been discussed
earlier in this judgment that the Symbols Order
makes detailed provisions for the reservation,
choice and allotment of symbols and the
recognition of political parties in connection
therewith. That the Commission should specify
symbols for elections in parliamentary and
assembly constituencies has also been made
obligatory by rule 5 of Conduct of Election Rules.
Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 gives a power to the
Commission to issue general or special directions
to the Returning Officers in respect of the
allotment of symbols. m e allotment of symbols by
the Returning Officers has to be in accordance
with those directions. Sub-rule (5) of rule 10
gives power to the Commission to revise the
allotment of a symbol by the Returning Officers in
80 far as the said allotment is inconsistent with
the directions issued by the Commission. It would,
there fore, follow that Commission has been
clothed with plenary powers by the above mentioned
Rules in the matter of allotment of symbols. The
validity of the said Rules has not been challenged
before us. If the Commission is not to be disabled
from exercising effectively the plenary powers
vested in it in the matter of allotment of symbols
and for issuing directions in connection
therewith, it is plainly essential that the
Commission should have the power to settle a
dispute in case claim for the allotment of the
symbol of a political party is made by two rival
claimants. In case, it is a dispute between two
individuals, the method for the settlement of that
dispute is provided by paragraph 13 of the Symbols
Order. If on the other hand, a dispute arises
between two rival groups for allotment of a symbol
of a political party on the ground that each group
professes to be that party, the machinery and the
manner of resolving such a dispute is given in
para graph 15. Paragraph 15 is intended to
effectuate and subserve the main purposes and
objects of the Symbols Order. me paragraph is
designed to ensure that because of a dispute
having arisen in a political party between two or
more groups, the entire scheme of the Symbols
Order relating to the allotment of a symbol
reserved for the political party is not set at
naught. m e fact that the power for the settlement
of such a dispute has been vested in the
Commission would not constitute a valid ground for
assailing the vires
13
of and striking down paragraph 15. The Commission
is an authority created by the Constitution and
according to Article 324, the superintendence,
direction and control of the electoral rolls for
and the conduct of elections to Parliament and to
the Legislature of every State and of elections to
the offices Of President, and Vice President shall
be vested in the Commission. The fact that the
power of resolving a dispute between two rival
groups for allotment of symbol of a political
party has been vested in such a high authority
would raise a presumption, though rebuttable, and
provide a guarantee, though not absolute but to a
considerable extent, that the power would not be
misused but, would be exercised in a fair and
reasonable manner.
There is also no substance in the contention that
as power to make provisions in respect to
elections has been given to the Parliament by
Article 327 of the Constitution, the power cannot
be further delegated to the Commission. m e
opening words of Article 327 are ‘subject to the
provisions of this Constitution’. The above words
indicate that any law made by the Parliament in
exercise of powers conferred by Article 327 would
be subject to the other provisions of the
Constitution including Article 324. Article 324 as
mentioned above provides that superintendence,
direction and control of elections shall be vested
in Election Commission, It, therefore, cannot be
said when the Commission issued direction, it does
so not on its own behalf but as the delegate of
some other authority. It may also be mentioned in
this context that when the Central Government
issued conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 in
exercise of its powers under section 169 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951, it did so as
required by that section after consultation with
the Commission.
The above decision upholds the power of the commission
to recognise political parties and to decide disputes
arising amongst them or between splinter groups within a
political party. It also upholds the power of the Commission
to issue the Symbols Order. m e Court has further observed
that it could not be said that when the Commission issued
the Symbols Order it was not doing so on its own behalf but
as the delegate of some other
14
authority. m e power to issue the Symbols Order was held to
be comprehended in the power of superintendence, direction
and control of elections vested in the commission.
Over-ruling the objection raised as to the validity of
the Symbols Order on the ground that it was legislative in
character and the Commission had no power to issue it in the
absence of entrustment of the power to make a law in
relation to elections, this Court observed in All Party Hill
Leaders’ Conference, Shillong v. Captain M.A. Sangma & Ors.
[1978] 1 S.C.R. 393, at page 408 thus:
“It is not necessary in this appeal to deal with
the question whether the Symbols Order made by the
Commission is a piece of legislative activity. It
is enough to hold, which we do, that the
Commission is empowered in its own right under
Article 324 of the Constitution and also under
rules 5 and 10 of the Rules to make directions in
general in widest terms necessary and also in
specific cases in order to facilitate a free and
fair election with promptitude. It is, therefore,
legitimate on the part of the Commission to make
general provisions even in anticipation or in the
light of experience in respect of matters relating
to symbols. m at would also inevitably require it
to regulate its own procedure in dealing with
disputes regarding choice of symbols when raised
before it. Further that would also sometimes
inevitably lead to adjudication of disputes with
regard to recognition of parties or rival claims
to a particular symbol. The Symbols Order is,
therefore, a compendium of directions in the shape
of general provisions to meet various kinds of
situations appertaining to elections with
particular reference to symbols. The power to make
these directions, whether it is a legislative
activity or not, flows from Article 324 as well as
from rules 5 and 10. It was held in Sadiq Ali
(Supra) that ‘if the Commission is not to be
disabled from exercising effectively the plenary
powers vested in it in the matter of allotment of
symbol and for issuing directions in connection
therewith, it is plainly essential that the
Commission should have the power to settle a
dispute in case claim for the allotment of the
symbol of a political party is made by two rival
claimants’. It has been
15
held in Sadiq Ali (Supra) that the Commission has
been clothed with plenary powers by rule 5 and
sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 10 of the Rules in
the matter of allotment of symbols.
In Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh, [1983] 1 S.C.R.
702, the same view is reiterated. The Court observed in
this case at page 719 as follows :
“The Symbols Order made by the Election Commission
in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the
Constitution read with rules 5 and 10 of the
Conduct of Elections Rules and all other powers
enabling it in that behalf, are in the nature of
general directions issued by the Election
Commission to regulate the mode of allotment of
symbols to the contesting candidates. It is a
matter of common knowledge that elections in our
country are fought on the basis of symbols. It
must but logically follow as a necessary corollary
that the Symbols Order is an order made under the
Act. Any other view would be destructive of the
very fabric of our system of holding parliamentary
and assembly constituency elections in the country
on the basis of adult suffrage.”
Even if for any reason, it is held that any of the
provisions contained in the Symbols Order are not traceable
to the Act or the Rules, the power of the Commission under
Article 324(1) of the Constitution which is plenary in
character can encompass all such provisions, Article 324 of
the Constitution operates in areas left unoccupied by
legislation and the words ‘superintendence’, ‘direction’ and
‘control’ as well as ‘conduct of all elections’ are the
broadest terms which would include the power to make all
such provisions. (See Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. [1978] 2
S.C.R. 272, and A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai & Ors. [1984] 3
S.C.R. 74.)
We do not also find any substance in the contention
that the Central Government which had been delegated the
power to make rules under section 169 of the Act could not
further delegate the power to made any subordinate
legislation in the form of the Symbols Order to the
Commission, without itself being empowered by the Act to
such further delegation. Any part of the Symbols Order which
cannot be traced to rules 5 and 10 of the Rules can
16
easily be traced in this case to the reservoir of power
under Article 324(1) which empowers the Commission to issue
all directions necessary for the purpose of conducting
smooth, free and fair elections. Our attention is not drawn
by the learned counsel for the petitioner to any specific
provision in the Symbols Order which cannot be brought
within the scope of either rule 5 or rule 10 of the Rules or
Article 324(1) of the Constitution and which is hit by the
principle delegatus non pottes delegare, i.e. a delegate
cannot delegate, the Commission itself in this case being a
donee of plenary powers under Article 324 (1) of the
Constitution in connection with the conduct of elections
referred to therein subject of course to any legislation
made under Article 327 and Article 328 of the Constitution
read with Entry 72 in List I or Entry 37 in List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and the rules made
thereunder. While construing the expression
‘superintendence’, ‘direction and control’ in Article
324(1), one has to remember that every norm which lays down
a rule of conduct cannot possibly be elevated to the
position of legislation or delegated legislation. There are
some authorities or persons in certain grey areas who may be
sources of rules of conduct and who at the same time cannot
be equated to authorities or persons who can make law, in
the strict sense in which it is understood in jurisprudence.
A direction may mean an order issued to a particular
individual or a precept which many may have to follow. It
may be a specific or a general order. One has also to
remember that the source of power in this case is the
Constitution, the highest law of the land, which is the
repository and source of all legal powers and any power
granted by the Constitution for a specific purpose should be
construed liberally so that the object for which the power
is granted is effectively achieved. Viewed from this angle
it cannot be said that any of the provisions of the Symbols
Order suffers from want of authority on the part of the
Commission, which has issued it.
We are not satisfied with the submission that the
several evils, malpractices etc. which are alleged to be
existing amongst the political parties today are due to the
Symbols Order which recognises political parties and
provides for their registration etc. m e reasons for the
existence of such evils, malpractices etc. are to be found
elsewhere. The surer remedy for getting rid of those evils
malpractices etc. is to appeal to the conscience of the
nation. We cannot, however, set aside the Symbols Order on
the grounds alleged in the petition.
We dismiss the petition accordingly.
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
17