V.S. Sirpurkar JUDGMENT
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Dr. Subramanian Swamy comes up before us challenging the judgment of the High Court of Delhi whereby his Writ Petition was dismissed. The Writ Petition was filed by Dr. Swamy in his personal capacity, though he claimed therein a mandamus for Janata Party of which he is the President. In the Writ Petition following prayers were made:
(a) A writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to strike down paragraph 10A of the Symbols Order as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
(b) A writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to bring the Symbols Order, notably paragraph 10A, in line with the requirement of Article 14 as set out hereinabove;
(c) A Declaration that paragraph 10A must be read down as set out hereinabove, in order to meet the requirements of Article 14;
(d) pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It seems that the original petition came to be amended incorporating three new paragraphs. Two paragraphs are reproduced here (other amendments are only formal):
9A. It is to be noted that under the prevailing political situation in India, Coalition Governments are the order of the day both at the Centre (for the last more than 16 years) and in most States. This has resulted in elections being increasingly fought by alliances of parties, so that in such electoral alliance, each party agrees to fight a lesser number of seats than what it would choose to fight on its own. Thus it becomes increasingly difficult for each such party to individually meet the recognition criteria laid down by the Election Commission in the (Amended) Symbols Order, wherein, in any event (by the introduction of paras 6A, 6B and 6C) the criteria for recognition have been enhanced. Even very big parties ruling are presently threatened with loss of their symbol. Such a result is not in consonance with the idea that elections must reflect the will of the people in all its variety.
9B. Even as of today with still a limited right to its symbol, the petitioner has been prejudiced by other political parties having been allotted its reserved symbol, whereby, it is the admitted position of the Election Commission, that its use by such other party is liable to cause confusion in the minds of the public while voting at elections (See Annexure P-6), which is the downloaded "Compendium of Instructions from the Election Commission of India to the State Election Commissions."):
(a) In the 2002 elections to local bodies ion Andhra Pradesh, the Janata Party's reserved symbol was actually allotted and utilized by another party the Telegu Rashtra Samiti, which has nothing to do with and does not share the ideals and principles of the Janata Party. The Janata Party's objections were rejected by the order dt. 20.06.2003 of........