Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vadlamuri Krishna Swaroop vs The Election Commission Of India on 5 August, 2024
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: WRIT APPEAL Nos. 492, 493, 497 & 498 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE REMARKS
ORDER
No.
06. 05.08.2024 GN,J & KM,J
Heard the learned counsels for the
appellants and the learned Senior Counsel
representing the Election Commission of
India.
The learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Election Commission of
India would submit that the complaint
against the exercise of power by the E.C.I.,
under the Election Symbols Order, 1968,
would constitute an issue that can be dealt
with, by the Election Tribunal, in exercise of
the jurisdiction vested in it under Section
100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act and that the same
has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Roop Lal Sathi Vs.
Nachhattar Singh Gill1 and take the Court
to paragraph Nos.17 and 19 wherein the
(1982) 3 SCC 487
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"17. In our judgment, the High Court
was clearly in error in holding that the
Symbols Order was not an order made
under the Act and therefore, the change of
allotment of symbols by the Returning
Officer in compliance with the directions
issued by the Election Commission, even if
it was in breach of paragraph 13 thereof,
did not amount to non-compliance with the
provisions of the Constitution, or the Act, or
any rules or orders made under the Act and
therefore the matter fell outside the ambit
of Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act. It is
however urged by learned counsel for the
respondent that the Symbols Order was not
an order made under the Act. Emphasis is
laid on the words „under the Act‟ occurring
in Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. We are
afraid; the argument is too tenuous to be
accepted. The Symbols Order was issued
by the Election Commission under Article
324 of the Constitution in exercise of its
undoubted powers of superintendence,
direction and control of the conduct of all
elections to Parliament and legislature of
every State. It is also relatable to Rules 5
and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules
framed by the Central Government in
exercise of their powers under Section 169
of the Act. Rule 4 of the Conduct of
Elections Rules provides that every
nomination paper presented under Section
33 of the Act shall be in Forms 2-A to 2-E,
as may be appropriate. Forms 2-A and 2-B
require the candidate to choose symbol.
Under Rule 5 (1) the Election Commission
by notification may specify the symbols that
may be chosen by candidates at elections
to Parliamentary and Assembly
constituencies. Under Rule 10 (4) the
Returning Officer shall consider the choice
of symbols expressed by contesting
candidates and "subject to any general or
special direction issued by the Election
Commission" allot different symbols to
different candidates. The allotment of
symbols by the Returning Officer is final
under sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 except where
it is inconsistent with any directions issued
by the Election Commission in that behalf
in which case the Election Commission
may revise the allotment in such manner as
it thinks fit.
19. As to the second question there
can be no doubt whatever that the High
Court was not justified in directing that the
averments in paragraphs 4 to 18 of the
election petition be deleted on the ground
that there was non-disclosure of material
facts sufficient to give rise to a cause of
action under Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the
Act."
The stand of the Election Commission
of India, would be better appreciated if, the
same is placed before the Court by way of
an affidavit of the Joint Chief Electoral
Officer, on behalf of the respondent No.1.
List the appeals on 13.08.2024.
______
GN, J
______
KM, J
PKR
