http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: RAMASHANKAR KAUSHIK AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1973

BENCH: DWIVEDI, S.N. BENCH: DWIVEDI, S.N. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1974 AIR  445            1974 SCR  (2) 265  1974 SCC  (1) 271  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1977 SC2155  (22)

ACT: Election  Symbols (Reservation and Allotment)  Order,  1968, paras 15, 16 and 18-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The  PSP  and SSP were national parties  with  the  election symbols  ’Hut’ and ’Tree’, respectively. in May, 1971  there was a merger of the two parties. and the ’United Party’  was known  as the Socialist Party.  The Election Commission  was informed   about   the  merger,  and  the   Chief   Election Commissioner,  in  November, 1971, held that  the  Socialist Party was a National Party for the purposes of the  Election Symbols  (Reservation and Allotment) Order,  1968,  and-that the  symbol  ’Tree’  should  be  exclusively  reserved   and allotted  to it.  Thereafter, the appellant. and  his  group decided to dissolve this unity and they requested the  Chief Election  Commissioner to hold that there was a  rebirth  of the Socialist Party to be called the SSP and that the ’Tree’ symbol  may  be allotted to the reborn SSP.   The  Socialist Party   opposed   this   request.    The   Chief    Election Commissioner,  after considering the matter, held  that  the appellant’s  party now calling itself SSP could not  be  the old SSP but was a new party, and that the new SSP could  not claim  the  ’Tree symbol for itself.  In  pursuance  of  the findings,  he issued a notification, under paragraph  17  of 1968-Order,  mentioning  the Socialist Party as  a  National Party with ’Tree as its symbol. In appeal to this Court it was contended, (1) that the  case was  covered by ,paragraph 15 of the 1968-Order which  deals with  a case where rival sections of a recognised  political party  claim to be that party; (2) the case fell within  the scope  of  rr. 5 and 10 of the Conduct  of  Election  Rules, 1961,  and  paragraph 18 of the 1968-Order, and (3)  as  the Chief  Election  Commissioner  did  not  hold  any   inquiry regarding  the  allegiance of the majority of  members,  his order was void. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : (1) Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, is not attracted to the facts of the present case. [275D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

A  new political party is formed by the joining together  of at   least  one  recognised  political  party  and   another political party.  The newly formed political party may apply for  recognition to the Election Commission under  Paragraph 16 of the Order.  After due hearing, the Election Commission may  recognise the newly formed political party either as  a National Party or as a State Party and may allot a symbol to it.  The decision of the Commission is binding on the  newly formed political party and all the components units thereof. The  expression "joining to gather in the paragraph is  used in  its broad meaning.  There is nothing in the  context  to restrict  its  meaning to a case of merger of  two  or  more political  parties  and their resultant  extinction  on  the formation  of  a  new  political  Party.   The  use  of  the expression "all the component units thereof", shows that  it will  also embrace a case of two or more  political  parties agreeing  to form or federating into a new  political  party while  retaining their separate identities.  The  expression ’joining together’ also includes a third type of case  where two  or  more politicAL parties, after deciding  to  destroy their separate identities, have brought into existence a new political  party, even though the process of extinction  was not  formally completed or was invalid and ineffective.   In such a case, they retain their separate identities and  will be  deemed to be component units of the new party.   In  the second and third types of cases also when the Commission has given  recognition  to the new formed political party  as  a National Party or a State Party and has allotted a symbol to it,  his  order  will  be binding on  them  since  they  are component units of the new party. [274D-275D] In the present case, the appellant’s group did not claim the Socialist Party already recognised.  The case set up by  the appellant’s group was that the 2 66 Socialist Party had-been dissolved and that a new  Socialist party   was.   reborn.   Admittedly  there   are   important differences  between the reborn SSP and the Socialist  Party recognised by the Chief Election Commissioner.  Their flags, their constitutions and their membership are all  different. [275D-F] Sadiq  Ali v. Election Commission of India, [1972] 2  S.C.R. 318, referred to. (2)(a)  Rule 5 of the Conduct of Election Rules, deals  with the case where the Election Commission specifies the symbols that  may  be  chosen by  candidates  in  parliamentary  and assembly  constituencies.  Rule 10(4) will apply only  in  a case  where the Returning Officer is considering the  choice of  a  symbol  expressed by a contesting  candidate  in  his nomination paper.  These rules will not apply to the present case.  Further, the provisions of paragraph 16 of the  Order will prevail over rr. 5 and 10, because, they are  expressly subject to any general or special directions or restrictions issued by the Election Commission.  The Order had been  made by  the Election Commission in exercise of its powers  under Art.  324 of the Constitution read with rr. 5 and 10 of  the Conduct of Election Rules. [271H; 276C-D] (b)   Paragraph  18(b)  of  the  Order  provides  that   the Commission  may  issue instructions and directions  for  the removal of any difficulty which may arise in relation to the implementation  of  the  provisions of the  Order.   In  the present  case,  no difficulty could arise in regard  to  the implementation of paragraph 16 of the Order.  Assuming  that the merger of the SSP in the Socialist Party was not a valid and accomplished fact on the date when the symbol ’Tree’ was allotted  to  the Socialist Party and that the old  SSP  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

been  enjoying a ceaseless existence, even then, the SSP  is bound  by  the decision of the Chief  Election  Commissioner under  paragraph 16(2), because, it would be regarded  as  a component unit of the Socialist Party. [275F-H] (3)It is not necessary on this view to decide whether  the SSP had merged in the Socialist Party and lost its  separate identity  and  whether the association of  the  two  parties could be dissolved by a majority. [276A]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 630 of 1973. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated the  14th March, 1973 of the Chief Election Commissioner  of India, New Delhi. regarding Symbol of the Samyukt  Socialist Party. D. V.  Patel,  J.  P. Goyal, Pranab Chaterjee  and  R.  A. Gupta, for the appellants. B.   Sen and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 1. S.   C. Malik, S. K. Mehta Santokh Singh, K. R. Nagaraja, M. Qamaruddin and Vinod Dhawan, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI, J. Before Independence the Congress Socialist Party functioned  as a group inside the Indian National  Congress. After  Independence it had to quit the Congress, and  became known  as  the Socialist Party.  On the eve of  the  general election  in 1952 another group of persons came out  of  the Congress.   They  formed  a new  party  called  the  Krishak Mazdoor  Praja Party.  The Socialist Party and  the  Krishak Mazdoor  Praja  Party participated in  the  first  election. ’Tree’  was the symbol of the Socialist Party; ’Hut’ of  the Krishak  Mazdoor  Praja Party.  Some time in  1953  the  two parties  merged together and formed a new party  called  the Praja  Socialist Party (hereinafter called the  P.S.P.).  It was  allotted the symbol of ’Hut’.  This unity was not  long lived.  In 1956 a group of persons came out of the 2 67 P.S.P.  They  reformed the Socialist Party.   The  Socialist Party  was allotted the symbol ’Tree’.  The P.S.P.  retained its  symbol  ’Hut’.   The two parties  participated  in  the second  general  election  in  1957  with  their  respective symbols.  In 1964 the P.S.P. and the Socialist Party  merged to  form  a new party called the  Samyukta  Socialist  Party (hereinafter  referred  to as, the S.S.P.). This  party  was allotted the symbol ’Hut’.  This unity also was short lived. In  1965 there was a split.  One group came to be  known  as P.S.P., and the other as S.S.P. The P.S.P. got back its  old symbol  ’Hut’,  the  S.S.P. got  the  symbol  ’Tree’.   They participated  in  the  general election  of  1967  and  bye- elections  in 1969 with their respective symbol.   The  urge for unity was again strongly felt after the general election to  the Lok Sabha in 1971 in which both parties made a  very poor  showing.   It appears that on May 25,  1971,  a  joint meeting  of  the  Chairman and General  Secretaries  of  the P.S.P.  and  the S.S.P. was held to draft an  agreement  for merger  of  the  two parties for consideration  by  the  two parties.    They  succeeded  in  hammerging  out   a   draft agreement.  The draft agreement was entitled the "basis  for the  unification of the S.S.P. and the P.S.P." It is a  long document.   It  laid emphasis on a broadbased unity  of  all democratic   socialists  who  have  genuine  commitment   to democratic  socialism.   It  expressed the  hope  that  "the unification of the S.S.P. and the P.S.P. can be a  precursor to such a broadbased socialist consolidation." According  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

it, the "primary task of the unified Socialist Party will be to  build an effective organisational instrument which  will lead   people’s  struggle  for  economic  equality,   social mobility   and  meaningful  participation  of   the   people in.building  a  socialist economy." The  document  uses  the expression "United Party" in various clauses.  For instance, it says : "The United Party will pursue an integrated  price policy whose important elements will be : (1) Parity between the prices of the agricultural produce and industrial  goods ;(2) the price of essential commodities not to exceed 1  1/2 times  the  coast  of  production  including  the  transport charges;  (3)  assurance  of a remunerative  price  for  the agricultural   produce   and   elimination   of   occasional fluctuations   in  price;  and  (4)  Socialisation  of   the wholesale trade in foodgrain and other essential commodities and   their  effective  distribution   through   cooperative agencies." As regards organisational unification of the  SSP and  the PSP, the agreement provided for the formation of  a National   Ad-hoc  Committee  comprising  of  the   National Executive  Committees  of  the S.S.P.  and  the  P.S.P.  The National Ad-hoc Committee of the United Party would  appoint office  bearers  of  the new party and also  set  up  ad-hoc committees at State level.  It was decided that "the name of the United Party will be Socialist Party".  The National Ad- hoc  Committee would prepare the membership pledge  for  the "New  Party"  and would fix up the membership year  and  the date  and  venue  of the first National  Conference  of  the United  Party.   The  document is signed by  Sarvsri  N.  G. Goray,  Karpoori Thakur, Prem Bhasin and  Georpg  Fernandes. The  draft  agreement  was approved by  a  Special  National Conference  of the S.S.P. held at Barhiya in Bihar  on  June 19, 1971.  The Conference approved the proposal "relating to S.S.P.  and  P.S.P. unification".  An  identical  resolution was, passed by the Special National Conference of the P.S.P. held  at  Bulandshahr in U.P. on August 7, and 8,  1971.  it appears that after the passing of these Iwo resolutions, 268 the  S.S.P.  and the, P.S.P. formed a new party  called  the Socialist  Party.   A  National  Ad-hoc  Committee  of   the Socialist  Party  was  constituted.   The  National   Ad-hoc Committee  held its first meeting in the Constitution  Club, New  Delhi  on  August 9 and 10, 1971.  51  members  of  the Committee  were  present  in  the  meeting.   Seven  special invitees  also  attended the meeting.   The  Committee  took several  decisions.   Sri  Karpoori  Thakur  and  Sri  Madhu Dandavate  were elected unanimously as Chairman and  General Secretary   of  the  party.   The  Committee  ratified   the agreement arrived at amongst the General Secretary of the  " erstwhile S.S.P.", the General Secretary of the,  "erstwhile P.S.P."  and the Chairman of the "old I.S.P." regarding  the representation  of the old I.S.P., Socialist  Party  (U.P.), Socialist  Party  (Bihar)  and  the  Socialist  Party  (West Bengal)  in the National Ad-hoc Committee of  the  Socialist Party.    The  Chairman  and  the  General  Secretary   were authorised  to  take  a decision in  the  matter  of  giving representation  in the Committee to the I.S.P.  (Bihar)  and other  groups  which  decided to merge in  the  Party.   The Committee  also took a decision as regards the  Party  flag. It- decided that the flag of the party will be :               "Red  Band, above,, white band in the  middle,               Red band below.  Insignia of wheel and  plough               to  be  painted in red in the  middle  of  the               white band." No final decision could be taken on the election symbol, and the  issue  Was  postponed for  consideration  in  the  next

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

meeting.   Certain  decisions were taken in  regard  to  the formation of State Ad-hoc Committees and District Committees of  the Socialist Party.  Decision was also taken in  regard to   membership  of  the  Socialist  Party.   The  form   of membership  was also adopted.  Sri Madhu Dandavate,  General Secretary  of the Socialist Party, despatched copies of  the resolutions   of  the  National  Ad-hoc  Committee  of   the Socialist  Party to the State and District units  on  August 14, 1971.  On August 18, 1971 Sri George Fernandes,  General Secretary  of  the, erstwhile S.S.P. sent a  letter  to  the Election   Commissioner.   An  identical  letter   proceeded simultaneously  to the Election Commissioner from  Sri  Pram Bhasin, General Secretary of the erstwhile P.S.P. Both these letters  state  that  the S.S.P. and the  P.S.P.  have  "now merged  ....  to form the new Socialist Party."  Sri  George Fernandes  requested the Election Commissioner to allot  the symbol  "Tree" to the Socialist Party.  Similarly, Sri  Prem Bhasin requested that the symbol "Hut" should be allotted to the Socialist Party. On August 23, 1971 Sri Surendra  Mohan, Joint Secretary of the Socialist Party, sent a letter to the Chief  Election  Commissioner along with the  two  aforesaid letters  as enclosures.  His letter states that "both  these parties have now merged alongwith some others to create  the Socialist Party." The letter concluded by saying that  until a  request  for  reservation  of  symbol  was  made  by  the Socialist  Party, the symbol ’Hut’ and ’Tree should  not  be allotted  to any other party.  It appears that the  National Ad-hoc  Committee of the Socialist Party met in  Lonavla  on October  22, 23 and 24, 1971 and took a decision as  regards its  election  symbol.   It  opted  for  the  symbol  ’Tree. Accordingly,  on  November 5, 1971 Sri Surendra  Mohan  sent another  letter  to  the  Chief  Election  Commissioner  for reservation  of  the symbol ’Tree’ to the  Socialist  Party. Paragraph  1  of the letter states that  the  ’Tree’  symbol which was reserved for the S.S.P. should be reserved for the Socialist 269 party.  Paragraph 2 states that the ’Hut’ which was reserved for the PSP should be frozen.  It should not be allotted  to any other party nor included in the list of symbols.   After considering  various  documents  and  hearing  some  of  the leaders  of  the erstwhile S.S.P. and P.S.P. as also  a  few persons  who were opposed to the merger of various   parties and  formation  of the socialist party, the  Chief  Election Corn  missioner  passed an order on November 15,  1971.   He came to the conclusion that the Socialist Party was entitled to  be,  recognised  as  a  National  Party.   He  has  also recorded,   this  finding  :  "In  the  circumstances,   the Commission    will  not  be unjustified  in  coming  to  the confusion  that  the  P.S.P. or the S.S.P.  does  no  longer subsist as a separate political party after the formation of the Socialist Party by the amalgam of these two parties  and some  other groups." As regards the dissidents  who  opposed Sri  Surendra  Mohan’s request. he said "In   any  case  the existence of a few dissident members in the P.S.P. or the  S S.P.  cannot  be  regarded as a  ground  for  the  continued existence,  of  the P.S.P. and S.S.P. as  separate  National Political  Parties." On these findings he decided that  "the newly formed Socialist Party formed by the merger of S.S.P., a National Party, p.S.P., another National Party, and  other political parties, such as the Indian Socialist Party, is  a National  Party  for the purposes of the  Election  Symbols (Reservation  and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter to  be referred  as  the Order), and that symbol  ’Tree’  shall  be reserved exclusively for that party and be allotted to  it.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

This  narrative  brings to close the first  chapter  of  the story.   We shall now pass-on to the second chapter  of  the story. Somewhere,  in the middle of April, 1972 Sri  Ramashankar  K declared  in a Press Conference that Sri Maniram  Bagri  was elected  as the General Secretary of the socialist party  in place   of  Sri  Madhu  Dandavate.   This  declaration   was questioned by others in the Socialist Party and proved to be a harbinger of fissure in the Socialist Party.  On May  13, and  14,  1972,  certain  Persons  callings  themselves   as delegates of the Poona Conference of the S.S.P. and  certain members of the P.S.P. and I.S.P. assembled at Allahabad, The meeting  was convened  by sri maniram Balgri.  The  meetings decided to annul "the ad-hoc merger of the S-S-P. and P.S.P. On  May  21, 1972, Sri Maniram Bagri sent a  letter  to  the Election  Commission.   Therein  he stated  that  the  unity between  the  S.S.P.  and P.S.P. was  void.   The  Allahabad assembly has decided to  dissolve  this unity and has  given rebirth  to  the  Socialist Party.  He  requested  that  the Tree  symbol  should  be allotted to  the  reborn  Socialist Party. On December 15 and 16, 1972 a Socialist Workers’  Conference was  held at Patna.  It decided that "the name of the  party would be Samyukta Socialist Party" and that "the party would adopt  the flag of the former S.S.P. It also.  decided  that the Steering Committee was Conference was held at   Lucknow. This   Conference  passed  a  resolution.   The   resolution relevantly  reads  :  "The special  national  conference  of social  party endorses the decision of annulling  the  adhoc merger  of  S.S.P  and P.S.P that has  been  passed  by  all Allahabad  Conference . . . Lest some people might be  under the illusion this Conference unequivocally declares that the merger of S.S.P. and P.S.P. herewith 270 stands annulled and the Party that is working in the name of the   so   called   socialist  party   under   the   General Secretaryship  of Dandavate is not the same as  the,  merged party between S.S.P. and P.S.P." It also endorsed. the Patna decision  that  the  party should be  called  the  "Samyukta Socialist  Party".   This  ends the second  chapter  of  the story. The third chapter of the story begins from January 27, 1973. On  that  date the Chief Election  Commissioner  received  a letter  from.   Sri Ramashanker Kaushik.  He  has  described himself in the letter as a Co-convener of S.S.P. The subject matter  of  the letter is : "allotment of ’Tree’  symbol  to S.S.P."  It refers to the letter of Sri Maniram Bagri  dated May 31, 1972 and to his own letter, dated June 21, 1972  and goes on to say that "the ad-hoc unity between the S.S.P. and the P.S.P  has broken down." It states that 13 members  from amongst  the  25 members of the National  Committee  of  the former  S.S.P.  were  with  their  party.   Almost  all  the legislators of the State Legislatures and Lok Sabha who were elected on S.S.P. ticket were with them.  Thost. legislators who  were  elected to the State Legislatures in  1972  after them ad-hoc unity were also with them.  The letter ends with the request that the symbol ’Tree’ should be allotted to the S.S.P.  The  Socialist Party opposed this request  and  the. Chief  Election  Commissioner forwarded its  caveat  to  Sri Ramashanker Kaushik.  By his letter dated March 13, 1973  he sent  his reply to the caveat.  On March 14, 1973 the  Chief Election  Commissioner  passed the order  impugned  in  this appeal.  Pursuant to the order, he published a  notification on  March  29, 1973 under paragraph 17 of the  Order.   This notification  mentions  the Socialist Party  as  a  National

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

Party with its symbol ’Tree’. The  Chief  Election  Commissioner  posed  two  issues   for decision (1)   whether Sri Ramashanker Kaushik’s party could be recognised as the     S.S.P.; and (2) whether the  symbol ’Tree’ could be reserved for it. On  the first question he recorded these findings : (1)  the merger of the S.S.P. and P.S.P. was complete and irrevocable and  there emerged from this merger a new party  called  the Socialist Party; (2) it is no body’s case that the Socialist Party  has ceased to exist; (3) the Constitution of the  new Party (called the S.S.P.) is different from the Constitution of  the  merged  S.S.P. Some of the office  bearers  of  the former party are new and were not the office bearers of  the merged S.S.P.; and (4) many leaders of the merged %S.P.  are still  members of The Socialist party. on these findings  he held  that the party (now calling itself the S.S.P.)  cannot be the old S.S.P. and is a new party. On  the  second issue he recorded these findings :  (1)  the decision of the Chief Election Commissioner regarding merger of the S.S.P. and P.S.P. and the formation of the  Socialist Party  has  been  acted upon by the former  members  of  the merged  S.S.P.  and  P.S.P.  (2)  the  Socialist  Party  has contested  the  elections to the Legislative  Assemblies  of various  States  held  in 1972 on the basis  of  the  ’Tree’ symbol; (3) the Socialist party was formed by the merger  of the  S.S.P. and P.S.P. and four other parties.   The  former members  of  the merged P,S.P. and other parties  are  still members  of the Socialist Party.  Only some of  the  ’former members of the merged S.S.P. have formed a party which 2 71 they  call  as S.S.P.; and (4) the Socialist  Party  is  now identified  with  the ’Tree’ symbol.  On these  findings  he came  to  the conclusion that the party now  calling  itself S.S.P. cannot claim the ’Tree’ symbol for it self. It  was  argued.  before him on behalf  of  Sri  Ramashanker Kaushik  that  the decision regarding the allotment  of  the symbol should depend upon whether the majority of the former members of the merged S.S.P. and the representatives elected on the merged S.S.P. and the Socialist Party tickets  belong to the Socialist Party or to the party now called the S.S.P. He took the view that this question was not relevant on  the facts and circumstances of the case, Accordingly, he has not made an  inquiry into this question.. As a result  of  his findings  on the two issues he rejected the applications  of Sarvsri Ramashanker Kaushik and Maniram Bagri.  He left open to  the  party now calling itself the S.S.P.  to  apply  for registration as a new party under paragraph 3 of the Order. Sri  Patel,  counsel  for the  appellants,  has  made  three submissions before us : (1) the case is covered by paragraph 15  of  the  Order; (2) in the alternative  the  case  falls within  the  scope  of  Rules 5 and 10  of  the  Conduct  of Election Rules, 1961 and paragraph 18 of the Order; and  (3) as the Chief Election Commissioner did not hold any  inquiry regarding  the  allegiance of the majority  of  members  and elected  representatives, the order is void.  In support  of his  arguments he has heavily relied on  Samyukta  Socialist Party vs.  Election Commission of India(1) and Sadiq Ali vs. Election Commission of India. (2) It  should  facilitate the appreciation of arguments  if  we notice  the  relevant provisions of the law at  this  stage. Clause  (1) of Art. 324 of the Constitution provides,  inter alia, that the superintendence, direction and conduct of all elections  to  Parliament and to the  Legislature  of  every State  shall be vested in a Commission called  the  Election Commission.  Clause (2) thereof provides that the,  Election

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

Commission  shall consist of a Chief  Election  Commissioner and  such number of Election Commissioners as the  President may   from   time  to  time  fix.   Section  2(g)   of   the Representation of the, People Act, 1951 (hereinafter  called the  Act)  defines the word "prescribed" as  meaning  "pres- cribed by Rules made under this Act." Section 59 of the, Act provides that at every election where a poll is taken  votes shall  be  given  by  ballot  "in  such  manner  as  may  be prescribed".  Section 169 deals with the rule making power of the Central Government.  Sub-section (1) thereof empowers the  Central Government to make rules "for carrying out  the purposes  of this Act." Sub-section (2)(c) thereof  provides that rules may be made with respect to "the manner in  which the  votes  are to be given both generally and  in  case  of illiterate  voters." The Central Government has enacted  the Conduct  of  Election Rules, 1961  (hereinafter  called  the Rules).  Rules 5(1) reads               "The   Election  Commission  s  I   hall,   by               notification  in the Gazette of India and  the               official  Gazette of each State,  specify  the               symbols  that may be chosen by  candidates  in               parliament-               (1) [1967] 1 S.C.R. 643.               (2) [1972] 2 S.C.R. 318.               272               ary   or  assembly  constituencies   and   the               restrictions  to which their choice  shall  be               subject."               Rule 10(4), (5) and, (6) read as follows               "(4)  At  an election in  a  parliamentary  or               assembly  constituency, where a  poll  becomes               necessary,   the   returning   officer   shall               consider  the choice of symbols  expressed  by               the contesting candidates in their  nomination               papers  and shall, subject to any  general  or               special  direction issued  in this behalf  by               the Election Commission,-               (a)   allot   a  different  symbol   to   each               contesting candidate in conformity, as far  as               practicable, with his choice; and               (b)   if  more contesting candidates than  one               have  indicated their preference for the  same               symbol,  decide  by  lot  to  which  of   such               candidates the symbol will be allotted               (5)The  allotment by the returning  officer               of  any symbol shall be final except where  it               is inconsistent with any directions issued  by               the  Election  Commission in  this  behalf  in               which case the Election Commission may  revise               the allotment in such manner as it thinks fit.               (6)Every  candidate or his  election  agent               shall  forthwith  be informed  of  the  symbol               allotted to the candidate and be supplied with               a specimen thereof by the returning officer." We  now  pass on to the relevant provisions  of  the  Order. Professedly,  the  Order  has  been  made  by  the  Election Commission in exercise of its power under Art. 324 read with rules 5 and 10.  It was made on August 31, 1968.   Paragraph 3 of the Order deals with registration of political  parties by  the Election Commission.  Any association of  citizens, desiring to be registered as a political party and intending to avail itself of the provisions of the Order, may make  an application to the Election Commission for its  registration as  a  political party for the purpose of  the  Order.   The paragraph  prescribes certain formalities for  registration.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

After  hearing  the applicants,  the  Election  Commissioner shall  decide  whether to register or not  to  register  the association  as  a political party for the purposes  of  the Order.   Ms decision shall be final.  Paragraph  4  provides that in every contested election a symbol shall be  allotted to a contesting candidate in accordance with the provisional of  the  Order and different symbols shall be,  allotted  to different  contesting candidates at an election in the  same constituency.  According to paragraph 5, there are two kinds of symbols : (1) reserved; and (2) free.  A reserved  symbol is  one which is reserved for a recognised  political  party for  exclusive allotment to contesting candidates set up  by that  party.   All other symbols are  free  symbols.   Under Paragraph 6 it is open to the Election Commission to specify which  political  party shall be regarded  as  a  recognised political party or as a non-recognised political party.   In certain contingencies a political party shall be treated  as a  recognised  political  party in a  State.   According  to paragraph 7, if a political party is treated as a recognised political  party under paragraph 6, in four or more  States, it  shall  be  known  as and shall enjoy  the  status  of  a ’National Party’ 2 73 throughout  the  whole of India.  If a  political  party  is treated as a recognised political party under paragraph 6 in less than four States, it shall be known and shall enjoy the status of a "State Party" in the State or States in which it is a recognised political party.  There is also a  provision to  the effect that every political party which  immediately before the commencement of the Order was a multi-State party shall,  on  such commencement of the Order,  be  a  National Party.  A similar provision is made in regard to a political party  recognised  as  a  State party.   Paragraph  8  (1  ) provides that a candidate set up by a National Party at  any election  in  any constituency in India "shall  choose,  and shall be allotted the symbol reserved for that party in that State  and no, other symbol."’ There is a similar  provision in regard to a State Party.  Sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph  8 provides  that  a  reserved symbol shall not  be  chosen  or allotted  to any candidate in any constituency other than  a candidate  set up by a National Party for whom  such  symbol has  been reserved or up candidate set up by a  State  Party for whom such symbol has been reserved in the State in which it is a State Party even if no candidate has been set up  by such   National  or  State  Party  in   that   constituency. According  to  paragraph 9, a symbol. reserved for  a  State Party  may  be included in the list of free symbols  in  any State in which that party is not a State Party.  The  symbol will  be  not allotted to a candidate set up  by  any  other political  party  for  that  State.   It  may,  however,  be allotted   to   any   independent   Candidate   in   certain circumstances.   According to paragraph 10, a candidate  set up by a State Party in which it is not recognised as a State Party  may exclusively be allotted the symbol  reserved  for the  State  Party  in  certain  conditions.   According   to paragraph 11, if a symbol has been exclusively allotted to a candidate set up by a political Party at the election in the parliamentary constituency that symbol shall not be allotted to any candidate at any election in any of the said assembly constituencies  which is being held simultaneously with  the parliamentary  election.   According to paragraph  12,  free symbols may be chosen by a candidate, other than a candidate set up by a National Party or a candidate set up by a  State Party.  Paragraph 15 is important in I this appeal. It reads :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

             "Were   the   Commission   is   satisfied   on               information  in its possession that there  are               rival  sections  or  groups  of  a  recognised               political party each of whom claims to be that               party,  the Commission may, after taking  into               account   all   the   available   facts    and               circumstances  of  the case and  hearing  such               representatives of the sections or group s and               other  persons as desire to be  heard,  decide               that  one such rival section or group or  none               of such rival sections or groups is that               recognised political party and the decision               of the Commission shall be binding or all such               rival sections or groups";               Paragraph   16  is  also  relevant   for   our               purposes.  It reads               "(1)  When two or more political parties,  one               or  some  or  all  of  whom  is  a  recognised               political  party or are, recognised  political               parties, join together to form a new political               party,  the Commission may, after taking  into               account all the               274               facts  and circumstances of the case,  hearing               such representatives of the newly formed party               and  other persons as desire to be  heard  and               having regard to the provisions of this Order,               decide-               (a)   whether  such newly formed party  should               be a National Party or a State Party; and               (b)   the symbol to, be allotted to it.                (2)  The  decision  of the  Commission  under               subparagraph(1) shall be binding on the  newly               formed political  party and all the component units thereof."               Paragraph  17  authorises  the  Commission  to               issue  a notification in the Gazette of  India               specifying  (a) the National parties  and  the               symbols  respectively reserved for  them,  (b)               the State parties  and ’ the symbols reserved               for  them,  (c)  the  unrecognised   political               parties;  and  (d)the free  symbols  for  each               State.               Sri Patel has also relied on paragraph  18(b).               It reads               "The  Commission  may issue  instructions  and               directions               (b)   for the removal of any difficulty  which               may arise in relation to the implementation of               any such provision.", It is first necessary to consider the impact of paragraph 16 on  this  ,case.   A new political party is  formed  by  the joining together of at least one recognised political  party and  another  political party.  The newly  formed  political party  may apply for recognition to the Election  Commission under  paragraph  16.   After  due  hearing,  the   Election ,Commission  may recognise the newly formed political  party either as a National Party or as a State Party and may allot a  symbol to it.  The decision of the Commission is  binding on  the newly formed political party and "all the  component units thereof." The two significant expressions in paragraph 16  are  "  dining together" and "all  the  component  units thereof."  According to the Webster’s New World  Dictionary, 1962  Edn. page 789 the word "join" has these meanings  "(1) to  place  together,  bring together,  connect,    pass  on,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

combine;  (2) to make into one, unite; (3) to become a  part or  a member of; enter into association with; (4) to  go  to and  combine  with;  (5) to enter into  the  company  of;  a company; (6) to go and take one’s proper place in." The word has evidently got several meanings.  When it is used in  the sense  of  "combine",  it may  imply  mingling  together  of things,often  with  a loss of distinction of  elements  that completely  merge with one another.  When it is used in  the sense of "unite", it implies joining or combining of  things to  form  a single whole.  When it is used in the  sense  of "associate",  it implies joining with another or  others  as companion,  partner etc.  According to the same  dictionary, the  word "component" is derived from "Corn" plus  "Ponere". Compuserve  means  serving  as one of the  parts  of  whole, constituent.   So  the  word corn,  potent  means  :  "part, constituent, ingredient." The  expression  "joining together" in  paragraph  16(1)  is apparently  used in its broad meaning.  There is nothing  in the  context to restrict its meaning to a case of merger  of two or more political parties and 275 their resultant extinction on formation of a new  political party.- It will also embrace a case of two or more political parties  agreeing  to  form  a  new  political  party  while retaining  their separate identity.  Our  construction  gets support  from  the  expression  "all  the  component   units thereof." We think this expression is included in  paragraph 16(2)  with the object of comprehending a case where two  or more political, parties have federated into a new  political party  while  retaining their separate identity  instead  of merging themselves into the new political party. it seems to us  that this expression also includes in paragraph 16(1)  a third  type  of case where two or  more  political  parties, after  deciding  to destroy their  separate  identity,  have brought  into  existence a new political party  even  though the,  process of extinction is not formally completed or  is invalid and ineffective.  In such a case, they retain  their separate  identity and will be deemed to be component  units of  the new party.  In the second and third types, when  the Commission  has  given  recognition  to  the  newly   formed political  party as a National Party or a State  Party  and has  allotted a symbol to it, his order will be  binding  on them as they should be regarded as the "component units"  of the new party. Returning  to the arguments of Sri Patel, we are of  opinion that paragraph 15 of the Order is not attracted to the facts of  the Present case.  The appellants did not  claim  before the Chief Election Commissioner that their group represented the  Socialist  Party recognised under paragraph 16  of  the Order.   The case set up by Sri Maniram Bagri was  that  the Socialist  Party has been dissolved and that  the  Socialist Party  is reborn  Sri Kaushik also pressed the claim of  the S.S.P.  against the Socialist Party.  Admittedly  there  are important  differences between the S.S.P. and the  Socialist Party.    Their   flags   are  different;   so   are   their constitutions.   Their  membership is also  different.   The S.S.P.  does not claim that it is the Socialist  Party.   On the facts of the present case, the appellants cannot  derive any  assistance from the decision in Sadiq Ali (supra).   In that case two rival groups claimed to be the Indian National Congress. The  next  argument  of  Sri  Patel  also  cannot  prevail’. Paragraph  18(b) of the Order provides that  the  Commission may issue instructions and directions for the removal of any difficulty which may arise in relation to the implementation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

of  the provisions of the Order.  Obviously,  no  difficulty can arise in regard to the implementation of paragraph 16 of the Order in the present case.  For the sake of argument, it may  be  assumed that the merger of the  Samyukta  Socialist Party   in  the  Socialist  Party  was  not  a   valid   and accomplished  fact  on the date when the symbol  "Tree"  was allotted to the Socialist Party under paragraph 16 and  that the  Samyukta Socialist Party has been enjoying a  ceaseless existence.   Even so, the Samyukta Socialist Party is  bound by  the  decision of the Chief Election  Commissioner  under paragraph  16(2) because the Samyukta Socialist Party  would be regarded as a component unit of the Socialist Party.   It cannot  now go back from his decision and claim  the  symbol "Tree".  it should be observed that it has not  been  proved that the Socialist Party has ceased to exist. 2 76 On  the  view that we are taking,, it is  not  necessary  to decide whether the S.S.P. had merged in the Socialist  Party and destroyed its separate identity.  But we should  observe that if--it were necessary for us to decide that matter,  we should have required evidence on certain aspects.  Two vital elements of an association are members and a common purpose for which they associate.  If an association is  constituted under a statute; it can be dissolved only in accordance with that statute; if it is organised on the basis of a contract, then  it can be dissolved only in accordance with the  terms of  the contract, commonly called the constitution.  If  the constitution provides for dissolution by the consent of  all the  members, the rule of decision by majority is  excluded. There seems to be no evidence on these material aspects.  The last argument also does not prevail.  Rule 10(4) of the Rules  will  apply  only  when  the  Returning  Officer   is considering the choice of a symbol expressed by a contesting candidate  in  his nomination paper.  We are  not  concerned with  such  a case at present.  Rule 5 will also  not  apply now.   The  provisions  of paragraph 16 of  the  Order  will prevail over rules 5 and 10 because rules 5 and 10 expressly are  subject  to  any  general  or  special  directions   or restrictions  issued by the Election Commission.  Sri  Patel has  relied  on  Samyukta  Socialist  Party  (supra).   That decision  was  given  under  rule  5  at  a  time  when  the Commission had not enacted the, Order.  As the present  case is now directly governed by the provisions of the Order, the appellants cannot derive any help from that decision. For the reasons already discussed, we find no force in  this appeal, and it is dismissed with, costs. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed. 2 77