Held: R1 was before the concerned authorities, well in time, by impugning the Notification dtd. 26.07.2023 which denied it the Plough symbol – Appellants sitting on the representation of R1, went ahead and notified the elections on 02/05.08.2023 – R1’s request for allotment of the Plough symbol was bonafide, legitimate and just, because in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (which included the present Union Territory of Ladakh), it was a recognized State Party having been allotted the Plough symbol – Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of J&K and the creation of two new Union Territories, the Union Territory of J&K and the Union Territory of Ladakh, though the ECI had not notified R1 as a State Party for the Union Territory of Ladakh, it cannot be simpliciter that R1 was not entitled for the allotment of plough symbol – Also, there was no conflict with any other stakeholder as the Plough symbol was neither a symbol exclusively allotted to any National or State Party nor one of the symbols shown in the list of free symbols – Thus, there was and is no impediment in such symbol being granted to R1 – In the absence of anything contrary in any rule framed for conduct of the elections in question, relating to allotment of symbols, the provisions of the 1968 Order can be relied upon as a guideline to exercise of executive power of like nature – On a harmonious reading of Paragraphs 9, 10, 10(A) and 12, under the terms of the 1968 Order, the request of R1 is not bereft of justification – In view of the 1968 Order, the appellants’ discretion was not unbridled, rather, it was guided by the 1968 Order – R1 is entitled to the exclusive allotment of the Plough symbol for candidates proposed to be put up by it – Orders of the High Court were in aid of the electoral process, no fault therewith – Entire election process set aside – Fresh Notification be issued – Appeal dismissed with costs – Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1997 – ss.12, 13 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Election Laws. [Paras 21, 23, 27-30, 37, 40 and 44] Constitution of India – Powers of Supreme Court and High Courts, part of Basic Structure:
Held: Powers of Supreme Court and the High Courts vested under the Constitution cannot be abridged, excluded or taken away, being part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. [Para 16]
Alternative remedy – No bar for exercise of writ jurisdiction – Ladakh Autonomous Hill Devel-opment Councils Act, 1997 – s.13: Held: The availability of alternative efficacious remedy is no bar to the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction – s.13, 1997 Act does not, and cannot, impede a Constitutional Court from proceeding further – High Court was not precluded from issuing a direction of the nature issued by it, more so when such direction does not violate any statutory provision – Constitution of India – Election Laws. [Para 16]
Practice and Procedure – Inter-departmental communications – Reliance upon:
Held: Inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right – In the present case, it was rightly contended that the Legal Opinion by the Law Department remains internal advice, and advice alone, and the same would not create/confer any right in favour of R1 – Elections – Administrative Law. [Para 17]
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Power to direct for actions, in rare and exceptional situation, not mentioned in the provisions concerned – Discussed.
Elections – Election authority, to be independent of any extraneous infl uence:
Held: Elections to any office/body are required to be free, fair and transparent – Elections lie at the core of democracy – The authority entrusted by law to conduct such elections is to be completely independent of any extraneous influence/consideration – In the present case, the Union Territory of Ladakh not only denied R1 the Plough symbol, but even upon timely intervention by the Single Judge, left no stone unturned not only to resist but also frustrate a cause simply by efflux of time. [Para 22]
Elections – Power of Supreme court to bring back status quo ante:
Held: Plea of the Appellants that no relief be granted to R1 due to the election process having reached the penultimate stage, rejected – Having chosen to not comply with successive orders of the High Court which were passed well in time, such as not to stall/delay the notified election schedule, the Appellants cannot be permitted to plead that interference by Supreme Court at this late juncture should not be forthcoming – No litigant should have even an iota of doubt or misimpression that just because of systemic delay or the matter not being taken up by the Courts resulting in efflux of time the cause would be defeated, and the Court would be rendered helpless to ensure justice to the party concerned – This Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures – Powers of this Court, if need be, to even restore status quo ante are not in the realm of any doubt, as held in Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Aurnachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly reported as [2016] 6 SCR 1 – Though, Nabam Rebia has been referred to a Larger Bench in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra however, the questions referred to the Larger Bench do not detract from the aforesaid power and furthermore, mere reference to a larger Bench does not unsettle declared law – Constitution of India – Practice and Procedure – Reference to larger Bench does not unsettle declared law. [Paras 31 and 32] Practice and Procedure – High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of Supreme Court on subject concerned is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending – High Courts refusing deference to judgments as a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness – Law laid down:
Held: High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands – It is not open, unless specifically directed by Supreme Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be – It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench – Further, in any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of Supreme Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts – Judicial Discipline. [Para 35]
Judgments/Orders – Interpretation of:
Held: By way of certain pronouncements, principles relating to elections to Parliament, State Assemblies and Municipalities have been extended to other arenas as well – However, interpretation of judgments is always to be made with due regard to the facts and circumstances of the peculiar case concerned – In the present case, having looked at Articles 243-O, 243ZG and 329 it is concluded that no bar hit the High Court, even on principle – Elections – Constitution of India – Articles 243-O, 243ZG and 329. [Para 36]
Elections – Election process started – Interference by Constitutional Courts:
Held: The self-imposed restraint by the Courts as a general principle in election matters, to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue – But where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are required, nay they are duty-bound, to step in – Constitution of India. [Para 37]
Elections – Authorities concerned using their powers relating to elections arbitrarily – Misconceived notion that eventually, after elections are over and when such decisions/actions are challenged, by sheer passage of time, irreversible consequences would have occurred, and no substantive relief could be fashioned – Taken note of: Held: Such conduct by authorities may seriously compel the Court to have a comprehensive re-think, as to whether the self-imposed restrictions may need a more liberal interpretation, to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, and done in time to nip in the bud any attempted misadventure. [Para 39]
Elections – Importance of symbol in an electoral system, especially one allotted to a political party – Discussed.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 : [1973] Suppl. SCR 1; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1 : [1976] SCR 347; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625 : [1981] 1 SCR 206; L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186; Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1 : [2018] 4 SCR 1; Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited, (2020) 6 SCC 1 : [2019] 16 SCR 1; Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Aurnachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016)
8 SCC 1 : [2016] 6 SCR 1 – followed.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595; Madhya Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88 : [2007] 9 SCR 715; Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 285 : [2019] 10 SCR 304; Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771; Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, 2023 SCC Online SC 95; Mahadeo v. Sovan Devi, 2022 SCC online SC 1118; High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, (2019) 16 SCC 663 : [2019] 2 SCR 692; Aish Mohammad v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC Online SC 736; Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 13 SCC 608 : [2009] 11 SCR 1015; Ashok Sadarangani v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 321 : [2012]
3 SCR 826; National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)
16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100; Shri Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, New Delhi, (1972) 4 SCC; All Party Hill Leaders’ Conference, Shillong v. Captain W A Sangma, (1977) 4 SCC 161 : [1978] 1 SCR 393; Edapaddi K Palaniswami v. TTV Dhinakaran, (2019) 18 SCC 219 : [2019]
3 SCR 200 – relied on.
Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 607; State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited (2018) 3 SCC 585; N P Ponnuswami v. Return-ing Officer, Namakkal Constituency, 1952 SCR 218; Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh, (1955) 1 SCR 267; Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaue, (1955) 1 SCR 1104; Narayan Bhaskar Khare (Dr) v. Election Commission of India, 1957 SCR 1081; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 : [1978] 2 SCR 272; Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A K M Hassan Uzzaman, (1985) 4 SCC 689 : [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 493; Indrajit Barua v. Election Commission of India, (1985) 4 SCC 722 : [1985] 3 Suppl. SCR 225; Election Commission of India v. Shivaji, (1988)
1 SCC 277 : [1988] 1 SCR 878; Digvijay Mote v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 175 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 553; Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 3 SCC 416 : [1996] 3 SCR 687; Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 6 SCC 303 : [1996]
5 Suppl. SCR 719; Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, (2000)
8 SCC 216 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 34; Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 45; West Bengal State Election Commission v. Communist Party of India (Marxist), (2018) 18 SCC 141; Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 6 SCC 548 : [2019] 14 SCR 704; Laxmibai v. Collector, (2020) 12 SCC 186 : [2020] 2 SCR 880; State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, (2021)
8 SCC 401 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.