Delhi High Court: In a petition preferred on behalf of petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution seeking to issue notice to petitioner and Respondent 2 to convene a meeting of National Working Committee and elect the office bearers, Jyoti Singh, J., stated that once a political party was registered, Section 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘the Act’) did not confer upon the ECI any supervisory jurisdiction to review whether the party adheres to its constitution and/or to scrutinize the conformity of its internal elections with its constitutional provisions.
The Court stated that in the present case, Bahujan Mukti Party was a registered unrecognized political party and no direction could be issued to ECI to exercise supervisory jurisdiction with respect to its internal matters relating to election etc., much less a direction to convene the meeting of the National Working Committee, which was a direction sought by the petitioner.
Background
In the present case, ECI had taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that no direction could be given to ECI to resolve inter se disputes within political parties. Thus, this Court cannot be called upon to issue a writ of mandamus to ECI to issue notice to petitioner and Respondent 2 to convene a meeting of National Working Committee and elect the office bearers.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it was clear from the reading of Swami Chakrapani v. Election Commission of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4432, that it was not for the ECI to resolve internal management disputes of political parties and in case of any grievance, the remedy might lie in taking recourse to filing a declaratory suit or any other appropriate civil remedy. The Court stated that no direction could be issued to ECI to direct either the Petitioner or Respondent 2 to convene the meeting of the National Working Committee and/or interfere in their internal elections.
The Court referred to Govind Yadav v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6016 and J. Jayachandran v. Election Commissioner of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 6343 and stated that it was evident that under Section 29-A of the Act , the task of the ECI was primarily limited to considering applications for registration of any association or body of individual citizens as a political party. Further, to ensure any subsequent material changes were communicated for the sake of accurate records. However, once a political party was registered, Section 29-A of the Act, did not confer upon the ECI any supervisory jurisdiction to review whether the party adheres to its constitution and/or to scrutinize the conformity of its internal elections with its constitutional provisions.
The Court stated that in the present case, Bahujan Mukti Party was a registered unrecognized political party and no direction could be issued to ECI to exercise supervisory jurisdiction with respect to its internal matters relating to election etc. much less a direction to convene the meeting of the National Working Committee, a direction sought by the petitioner.
Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.
[Bahujan Mukti Party v. Election Commission of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 619, decided on 30-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ali Md. Maaz, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sidhant Kumar, Om Batra and Shagun Chopra, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
