On 4th July, the Delhi High Court in its bench consisting of Justice Prateek Jalan, in the case of Anna Ysr Congress Party Vs. The Election Commission of India through its Chief Election Commissioner & Anr., held that any person approaching the Court in a writ petition is duty bound to disclose all material facts and correspondence. It further stated that the grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and depends upon various equitable considerations, including the consideration of delay.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution; the petitioner sought the direction upon Respondent 1 (Election Commission of India) to withdraw the registration of Respondent No. 2, viz. “Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party”, as a political party, and also to withdraw its status as a recognised State party. It contends that Respondent No. 2, registered as “Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party”, is using an abbreviated form of its registered name, viz. “YSR Congress Party”, which is deceptively similar to the petitioner’s name.
Contention of the petitioner:
The following contentions have been made by Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner:
- According to the petitioner, such use of similar name by Respondent No. 2 is contrary to directions of the ECI, and Respondent No. 2 is consequently liable to withdrawal of its registration, and its status as a “recognised political party”.
- It was contended that Respondent No. 2 uses the abbreviation “YSR Congress Party” in election propaganda, letterheads and other publicity material, although it uses the full form of its name in communications addressed to the ECI.
- The ECI also called upon Respondent No. 2 to furnish a copy of its constitution with the new name at the time of hearing and was advised not to use the abbreviated form of the name of the party in “any documents of letterhead of the party”. However, Respondent No. 2 has failed to honour the specific advice of the ECI to this effect.
- The petitioner has also cited the judgment in Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr. to submit that the direction given by the ECI to Respondent No. 2 is binding upon Respondent No. 2.
Contention of the Respondent:
The following contentions have been made by Mr. Sidhant Kumar on behalf of the ECI:
- It was submitted that registration and recognition of political parties by the ECI is not concerned with the abbreviated names which parties may use, but with the names under which the political parties are registered.
- It was further submitted the ECI advised the Respondent no 2 not to use the abbreviated form of the name of the party so as to avoid any confusion in the ECI’s documentation.
The following contentions have been made by Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2:
- It was submitted that petitioner’s reliance upon this judgment is also misplaced. It is not the respondents’ contention that the directions of the ECI did not bind Respondent No. 2, but that there was no direction of the nature asserted by the petitioner as to not using similar abbreviations.
- It was also contended that the writ petition is motivated by extraneous considerations, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2 has achieved considerable electoral success in the general elections to the Lok Sabha, as well as the State elections in Andhra Pradesh in the year 2019.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The bench of Delhi High Court in the present case observed the following:
- The view of the ECI regarding the recognition of Respondent no 2 as a political party is not arbitrary and unreasonable, so as to require interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- At the time when the petitioner sought registration as a political party with the name “Anna YSR Congress Party”, it was well aware that Respondent No. 2 is already registered as political party and uses an abbreviation that includes the term “YSR”.
- The court further observed that the petitioner hide important details relating to the facts and circumstances leading to its registration as a political party. Therefore the present petition holds no ground.
The court held that any person approaching the Court in a writ petition is duty bound to disclose all material facts and correspondence. The grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and depends upon various equitable considerations, including the consideration of delay.
The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
