Delhi High Court: In a petition regarding the justiciability of the disputes arising from internal elections for the selection of office bearers within registered political parties in India wherein directions were sought to annul the changes incorporated by Janata Dal United (‘JDU’) for being made in violation of Section 29(A)(9) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘RP Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. found no compelling reason to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner since the petition lacked merit and fell outside the jurisdictional scope of Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background
The petitioner in the present matter was an expelled member of JDU, a recognized State political party under the provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (‘Symbols Order’).
As per Section 29(A)(9) of the RP Act, JDU notified the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) regarding amendments in its list of office bearers through a series of correspondences dated 10-11-2016, 13-11-2019, 18-02-2021, 03-08-2021, and 27-09-2021. Through the present petition, the petitioner sought a declaration from the Court that the internal party elections conducted by JDU in 2016, 2019, and 2022 were in breach of the party’s constitution.
The petitioner claimed to be one of the founding members of the Janata Dal political party and played a significant role in its formation. He asserted a long-standing political career and mentioned that he had occupied various significant roles within Janata Dal and subsequently, within JDU.
The grievance of the petitioner was regarding a communication dated 11-04-2016 whereby the ECI was informed that Nitish Kumar (respondent 3) had been elected as the president of JDU through an organizational election. The petitioner submitted that even though the election dated 10-04-2016 before the National Executive was disputed, the National Council, vide decision dated 23-04-2016, ratified the alleged election of Nitish Kumar.
The petitioner also objected to the internal correspondences and claimed to have submitted a representation dated 04-10-2016 along with three other individuals and highlighted the illegalities in the organizational elections of JDU.
It was claimed that the scheduled internal party elections were overridden by fresh notices and rival members were declared as party office bearers using emergency provisions of the party’s constitution. It was asserted that all subsequent appointments following the election of Nitish Kumar were made in contravention of the party’s constitution and were orchestrated to advance certain vested interests.
The petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the ECI on 10-03-2017 to which the ECI replied on 24-05-2017 and stated that it does not engage in inquiries into such disputed internal matters and directed the petitioner to adhere to the position articulated in its letter dated 07-02-2017 wherein the provision of disciplinary action under the party’s constitution was mentioned by the ECI.
The petitioner asserted that the ECI had failed to recognize the office bearers elected as per the party’s constitution and had instead accorded recognition to a rival faction of the party.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted the pertinent provisions related to political parties, the allotment of symbols, their registration, and the principal provisions outlined in Section 29-A of the RP Act. It was said that in the present matter, the adjudication hinged on whether the scope of scrutiny or inquiry was solely administrative or quasi-judicial in nature.
The Court stated that an examination of Section 29-A of the RP Act which encompassed the submission of applications, provision for submission of certain information alongwith applications, adjudication or decision-making on such applications, and adherence to the principles of natural justice before issuing any order, clearly indicated that the functions under Section 29A are not merely administrative. Instead, the Court said that the functions assigned to the ECI under Section 29A involved quasi-judicial elements.
Therefore, the Court held that the functions performed by the ECI under Section 29-A of the RP Act were essentially quasi-judicial in nature, and any order issued thereunder constituted a quasi-judicial order.
The Court referred to S.S. Karana v. Election Commission 1993 SCC OnLine Del 257 wherein it was held that following the registration of an association or body as a political party, any alteration to its name, head office, office bearers, address, or other material matters must be promptly communicated to the ECI without any delay. It was said that this requirement ensured that any changes to the details initially provided in the registration application, as mandated by sub-Section (4), are updated for the facility of the political party.
After perusing various decisions, the Court found it evident that there was a distinct divergence in the scope and nature of the examination and the quasi-judicial function carried out by the ECI under Section 29(A)(9) of the RP Act as compared to the Symbols Order.
Further, the Court said that even though the function of the ECI was quasi-judicial in nature under Section 29-A of the RP Act, its role must remain strictly within the boundaries established under the Act.
The Court said that Section 29A primarily concerns the registration of any association or body of individual citizens of India as a political party and also, enlisted the scope of inquiry under this provision. It was said that the ECI was empowered to call for any additional particulars from the association or body as it deems necessary.
The Court found it to be evident from Section 29A that the task of the ECI was primarily limited to considering the applications for registration of any association or body of individual citizens as a political party and ensuring that any subsequent material changes are promptly communicated to maintain accurate records.
Further, the Court said that once a political party is registered, Section 29A does not confer upon the ECI any supervisory jurisdiction to review whether the party adheres to its constitution or to scrutinize the conformity of its internal elections with its constitutional provisions.
The Court said that the principle established in Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare (2002) 5 SCC 685 reinforced the notion that once recognition is granted by the ECI, a political party’s status remains largely inviolable, with cancellation permissible only under narrowly defined exceptions.
The Court found it important to note that a dispute between the rival factions of a political party each claiming to be identified as the political party itself and a dispute regarding the mode/manner/method of internal elections for the selection of office bearers of a political party, are completely distinct disputes. It was said that the jurisdiction to adjudicate the former came from the Symbols Order, however, the latter controversy was not justiciable before the ECI or the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that the dispute at hand was initially raised by one faction of JDU under Para 15 of the Symbols Order and vide interim order dated 17-11-2017, it was decided that by the test of majority, it was in favour of the faction led by Nitish Kumar. The interim order recognized the group led by Nitish Kumar as the legitimate JDU faction and resultantly, this faction was granted the entitlement to use the reserved symbol, the Arrow, as the officially recognized State party in Bihar.
Further, the Court noted that the petitioner’s objections in the proceedings under the Symbols Order were addressed and rejected in accordance with paragraph 4 of the said order by the ECI, which established that the disputes concerning internal party elections fell outside its purview and should be resolved through appropriate forums or competent courts. The order dated 25-11-2017 reaffirmed this position and recognized the faction led by Nitish Kumar as the legitimate JDU.
The Court said that the petitioner’s contention whereby it was interpreted that the party’s internal forum had declared the elections conducted by JDU to be invalid, citing the letter dated 20-09-2017, which designated Chhotu Bhai Amarsangh Vasava as the acting party president, lacked merit when considered against the ECI’s orders.
The Court noted that the final order dated 25-11-2017 from the ECI recognized Nitish Kumar as the party president and his faction as the legitimate State party in Bihar and that the letter dated 20-09-2017 which was issued by the rival faction that lost its claim under the Symbols Order, could not be given credence.
The Court held that the nature of the reliefs sought in the present writ petition fell wholly outside the ambit of the inquiry contemplated under Section 29-A of the RP Act and dismissed the same.
[Govind Yadav v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6016, Decided on 29-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Pathak Rakesh Kaushik
For Respondents — Advocate Sidhant Kumar, Advocate Om Batra
Buy Constitution of India HERE
