SUNNDER KUMAR RALLI v. UNION OF INDIA — 1997 DIGILAW 118 (DEL)

M. JAGANNADHA RAO ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the President of Desh Bakht Party. It is stated that the said party is registered with the Election Commission of India, bearing registration No. 56/132/90 dated 20 12. 90 The petitioner had REFERRED TO to the oncoming elections to the Municipal Corporation Delhi, Scheduled for 23. 2. 1997, and states that the election process starts with the filing of the nomination papers on 24. 1. 97. The filing of nominations is slated to close on 31. 1. 97. ( 2 ) THE petitioner challenges the notification which prescribes that nomination papers of candidates set up by an unrecognised party and independents should have at least 10 proposers. The petitioner s contention is that while recognised political parties are allowed to have their candidates proposed by a single proposer, it is unreasonable to require 10 proposers so far as independent candidates and candidates set up by recongnised political parties are concerned. It is stated that the fact that some of the unrecognised, parties are registered is a factor which should have been taken into consideration and that it was not permissible to require even registered political parties like the petitioner to have their candidates proposed by 10 proposers. Petitioner has also challenged the vires of the notification on the ground that the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has no power to issue the Notification dated 24. 10. 96. ( 3 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Capt. Virender Kumar (Retd.) and the learned counsel for the Election Commission, Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog, at the stage of admission. ( 4 ) WE may first notice Section 29a of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ). The said Section deals with the registration of political parties with the Election Commission of India. It states that any association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself a political party and intending to avail itself of the provisions of Part IVA of the Act shall make an application to the Election Commission of India for its registration as a political party. Variously details which have to be submitted in the application for registration are specified in sub clause (4) of Section 29a. Sub-clause (7) of the said Section provides for the Election Commission passing orders as to registration of the political party. Variously details which have to be submitted in the application for registration are specified in sub clause (4) of Section 29a. Sub-clause (7) of the said Section provides for the Election Commission passing orders as to registration of the political party. ( 5 ) WE shall next come to recognition of political parties. The question of recognition of political parties is covered by the Election Symbols (Reservation And Allotment) Order, 1968, (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Order ). The preamble to the said Order states that it is an order to provide for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols at elections in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies, for the recognition of political parties in relation thereto and for matters connected therewith. Sub clause (h) of Clause 2 of the Order defines "political party" as an association or body of individual citizens of India registered with the Commission as a political party under section 29a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Clause 3 of the Order provides for the additional particulars to be furnished in. or alongwith, an application for recognition of a political party. Clause 4 of the Order deals with allotment of symbols. Clause 6 of the Order is important and it deals with the "classification of political parties Sub clause (1) thereof provides that for the purposes of the Order and for such other purposes as the Commissioner may specify as and when necessity therefore arises, political parties are either recognised political parties or unrecognised political parties. Sub clause (2) thereof stales that a political party shall be treated as a recognised political party in a state, if and only if either the conditions specified in Clause (A) are. or the condition specified in Clause (B) are. fulfilled by that party and not otherwise. It is not necessary for the present purpose to give details mentioned under the headings (A) and (B) in Sub-clause (2) of Clause 6. The order deals with various other aspects concerning recognition of parties and their symbols. ( 6 ) THE first question raised is whether the requirement of 10 proposers for candidates belonging to unrecognised political parties and independents offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As is clear from section 29a and the symbols Order, 1968 there is sound basis for dividing political parties into recognised political parties and unrecognised political parties. ( 6 ) THE first question raised is whether the requirement of 10 proposers for candidates belonging to unrecognised political parties and independents offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As is clear from section 29a and the symbols Order, 1968 there is sound basis for dividing political parties into recognised political parties and unrecognised political parties. The importance of a recognised political party as compares to a registered political party came up for decision before the Supreme Court of India in Rania Kant Panday Vs. Union of India ( AIR 1993 SC 1766 ). There the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the validity of division,of political parties into recognised and unrecognised political parties. The question arose in the context of Section 52 of the Representation of People Act. Section 52 of the Act had been amended in the year 1992 by Ordnance 1/92 and Ordnance 2/92. By the first Ordnance a prevision was made in relation to countermanding of election in certain circumstances. The amendment was made in the context of deaths of candidates who were contesting elections as independent candidates or as candidates belonging to unrecognised political parties. The amendment of Section 52 of the Act required countermanding of elections only in case of death of candidates of recognised political parties and not other candidates who contested the elections as independent candidates or as candidates who were set up by unrecognised political parties. The Supreme Court, at length, dealt with the distinction between the recognised political parties and unrecognised political parties and obsen ed that the party system is the very basis of the democratic government under our Constitution as well as the British pattern. In para 9 of the said judgment their Lordships obsen ed as under: "the challenge of the petitioner is directed against the differential treatment which the election law in India gives to candidates set up by political parties. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel is that the party system and the recognition of political parties is itself detrimental to the cause of real democracy. In any event, no additional advantage ought to have been allow ed to candidates set up. . by political parties. This stand runs counter to be constitutional scheme adopted by the nation. It has firmly been established that the Cabinet System of Government. In any event, no additional advantage ought to have been allow ed to candidates set up. . by political parties. This stand runs counter to be constitutional scheme adopted by the nation. It has firmly been established that the Cabinet System of Government. has been envisaged by our Constitution and that the same is on the British Pattern. . . . In England where democracy has prevailed longer than in any other country in recent times, the Cabinet system of Government has been found to be most effective. In the other democratic countries also the party system has been adopted with success. It has been realised that for a strong vibrant democratic Government, it is necessary to have a parliamentary majority as w ell as a parliamentary minority, so that the different points of view oncontroversial issues are brought out and debated on the floor of the Parliament. This can be best achieved by the party system, so that the problems of the national may be discussed, considered and resolved in that constructive spirit. To abolish or ignore the party system would be to permit a chorus of discordant notes to replace an organised discussion. In his book "cabinet goverment" (2nd Edition, page 16) Sir Iv or Jennings has very rightly said, "party welfare is thus essential to the working of the democratic system. " It is, therefore, idle to suggest that for establishing a true democratic society, the party system should, which was further emphasised by the additional of the 10th Schedule of it. The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order is also a step in that very direction. "the Supreme Court then went on to hold that there is no merit in the contention that the candidates set up by recognised political parties should not receive any special treatment. Again, their Lordships in para 10 of the said judgment after referring to two earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, stated as follows: "there is also no merit whatsoever in the contention that candidates set up by the political parties should not receive any special treatment. The fact the candidates set up by political parties constituted a class separate from the other candidates has been recognised by this Court in numerous cases. In paragraph 14 of the judgment in the case of Dr. P. N. Thampy Terah Vs. The fact the candidates set up by political parties constituted a class separate from the other candidates has been recognised by this Court in numerous cases. In paragraph 14 of the judgment in the case of Dr. P. N. Thampy Terah Vs. Union of India, (1985) Suppl SCC 189; ( AIR 1985 SC 1133 ), the Constitution Bench observed thus:- "it is the political parties which sponsor candidates, that are in a position to incur large election expenses which often run into astronomical figures. We do not consider that preferring political parties for exclusion form the sweep of monetary limits on election expenses is so unreasonable or arbitrary as to justify the preference being struck down upon that ground. " ( 7 ) IN view of the provisions of The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and also Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the above decision of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that he distinction between candidates set up by the recognised political parties on the one hand and those set up by the unrecognised political parties and independents on the other hand, is a valid classification, in as much as it is based on the party system which is the very foundation of the democratic form of government. ( 8 ) SO are as registration of the political parties under the Act is concerned, in our opinion it is only meant for the purpose of the Election Commission having a list and record of political parties and for `regulating the election process. Such registration obviously is different from recognition of a political party, as already stated. Mere registration of a political party under the Act cannot be treated as recognition under the Order. ( 9 ) THE next contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to Section 31 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the dmc Act ). The said Section deals with the power to make rules regulating the election of counselor. Sub-clause (1) (c) of Section 31 deals with the power to make rules in regard to nomination of candidates, form of nomination papers, objections to nominations and scrutiny of nominations. The said Section deals with the power to make rules regulating the election of counselor. Sub-clause (1) (c) of Section 31 deals with the power to make rules in regard to nomination of candidates, form of nomination papers, objections to nominations and scrutiny of nominations. Under the said Section 31 the Central Government can makes rules to provide for or regulate all or any of the matters specified in Sub-clause (I ). including the masters relating nomination of candidates. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 ofthe Act. as amended by the DMC Act. 1993 (No. 67 of 1993) rend with Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs notification dated 19. 10. 66 the Lt Governor has now issued the amendment to the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules. 1970 on 24. 10. 96. By virtue ofthe said notification dated 19. 10. 66 the rule making power in this behalf has been delegated by the Central Government to the Lt. Governor ofthe Union Territory. It is in the amendment to Rule 15 ofthe Rules that this requirement of their being 10 proposers has been specified. So far as the power exercised by the Lt. Governor on behalf of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi by issuing the notification dated 24. 10. 96 is concerned, we are satisfied that the Government ofthe National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Lt. Governor have the necessary power to make amendment to these rules. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon Article 328 ofthe Constitution of India to say that once the Legislature ofthe National Capital Territory of Delhi came into being the power delegated under Section 31 ofthe DMC Act could not be exercised by the Lt. Governor. Article 328 of the Constitution of India reads as under: 328. Power of Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to elections to such Legislature. Governor. Article 328 of the Constitution of India reads as under: 328. Power of Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to elections to such Legislature. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and in so 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 w ith respect to all matters relating to, or in connection w ith, the election 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 suchHouse or Houses. " The said Article only provides that Parliament may make provision with respect to all matters relating to the elections to the House or either House of the Legislature of the State, including preparation of electoral rolls and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses where no provision in that behalf has been made by the Parliament. ( 11 ) WE are unable to see how Article 328 of the Constitution of India is attracted to the facts of this case. We are not concerned here with elections to either House of the Legislature of the States. In any event, the provisions made in Section 31 of the DMC Act does not stand repealed merely because of the Constitution of the States Legislature. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then REFERRED TO to Annexure 2 with the writ petition, which is a press Note issued by the Election Commission of the National Capital Territory of Delhi dated. 21. 1. 1997, which refers to the election programmer and the other details. We are unable to see how any part of this Press Note can support the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Press Note itself refers to the amendment in the DMC (Election of Councilors) Rules by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, and when the Press Note itself refers to the statutory rules, the validity of which we have upheld, there cannot be any quarrel with the system to 10 proposers introduced in the rules. ( 13 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed in limine.