Delhi High Court: ECI Can’t Give Any Finding Regarding Internal Disputes Arising From Rival Sections Within Unrecognized Political Party
The Delhi High Court said that there is no specific duty imposed upon the ECI to give any finding concerning the internal affairs of a political party.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reemphasized that the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot give any finding regarding internal disputes arising from rival sections within an unrecognized political party.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by the political party namely M/s Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) through its founder, challenging the letters/communications issued by ECI, insofar as they extend and reaffirm the tenure of the previous President and office bearers of the said party.
A Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “… in view of the settled law discussed hereinabove and upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the parties before this Court, it is manifest that the ECI has no power or jurisdiction to give any finding as regards internal disputes emanating from rival sections within an unrecognized political party, as in the case of the petitioner political party. Furthermore, the ECI, as such, shall not recognize or de-recognize any rival faction or any claims that may be raised by any rival faction.”
The Bench said that there is no specific duty imposed upon the ECI to give any finding concerning the internal affairs of a political party.
Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, Advocates M.P. Devnath, Abhishek Anand, Rahul Kumar, K Arul, Charu Trivedi, and Hridyanand Ojha represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocates Saurabh Kirpal, Rajshekhar Rao, and Advocate Sidhant Kumar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was the registered unrecognised political party which was founded by Dr. S. Ramadoss on July 16, 1989. It had its own constitution and bye-laws, governing, inter alia, internal affairs such as memberships, terms, and tenures, etc. Dr. R. Anbumani was elected as the President of the Petitioner party in May 2022 for a period of 3 years. Subsequently, the Petitioner party vide letter duly informed the ECI with respect to the election and appointment of Dr. R. Anbumani, in terms of the requirements of Section 29A(9) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act).
Thereafter, Dr. S. Ramadoss took charge as President of the Petitioner party, and vide letter, the ECI was informed with regard to change in the post holder of the President. A letter was addressed to the ECI wherein it was informed that Anbumani has been acting as Executive President of the party without any authorization. ECI letters which recorded Anbumani as President until August 1, 2026 led to the filing of Writ Petition before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “… the position of law as propounded by this Court is that, while Clause 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation And Allotment) Order, 1968, empowers ECI to decide disputes between rival sections or groups of a “recognised political party” each of whom claims to be that party, there is no corresponding provision that empowers ECI to decide disputes between rival sections or groups of a “unrecognized political party”, like the petitioner herein.”
The Court referred to the Judgment in the case of Janata Party v. Election Commission of India and Another (2024), wherein, it was reiterated that it is not for the ECI to resolve any internal disputes within unrecognized political parties.
“Thus, any information that is provided to the ECI in terms of Section 29A(9) of the RP Act, is only for the purposes of providing the information to the ECI with respect to any change in the name, head office, office bearers, address, etc. of a registered political party. The ECI receives such information so that the record of the ECI with respect to a registered political party is updated. However, the ECI does not verify or examine the veracity of such information that may be provided to the ECI”, it said.
The Court further took note of another Judgment in the case of Govind Yadav v. Union of India and Others (2024), wherein, with respect to the scope of Section 29A(9) of the RP Act, it was categorically held that the said Section only obliges a political party to inform the ECI of any changes in the registration details, so that correction can be made by the ECI in its record, and communications can be addressed accurately.
“… no faction or any person can claim any special equity on the basis of any such information that may be in the record of the ECI, when there are internal disputes within the unrecognized registered political party with regard to any issue. The ECI will not recognize any rival faction of a registered unrecognized party in case of internal disputes, as it is not for the ECI to resolve these disputes. Such inter se disputes in a registered and unrecognized party, would have to be resolved in a civil suit”, it observed.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- M/s Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10995)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, Advocates M.P. Devnath, Abhishek Anand, Rahul Kumar, K Arul, Charu Trivedi, and Hridyanand Ojha.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Saurabh Kirpal, Rajshekhar Rao, Advocates Sidhant Kumar, Shagun Chopra, Tushar Gupta, Nitya Gupta, S. Balu, Karuna Karan, Vinoba Boopathi, Aditi Gupta, Lakhvinder Singh, Junaid Aamir, and Aaliya Waziri.
