P.J.Joseph vs Election Commission Of India on 22 February, 2021

Here is a summary of the judgment:

1. Outcome

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeals, thereby upholding the common judgment of the single judge. The single judge's decision to affirm the Election Commission of India's (ECI) order, which granted the 'two leaves' symbol to the group led by Sri. Jose K. Mani (one of the rival factions of the Kerala Congress (Mani) political party), was sustained. The Court explicitly declared that Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, has not become redundant.

2. Core Issue

The core issue was whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) retained its plenary powers under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 ("Symbols Order, 1968") to determine which rival faction of a recognised political party (Kerala Congress (Mani)) was entitled to the reserved election symbol ('two leaves'), especially in light of:
* The insertion of Section 29-A into the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("RPA, 1951"), concerning the registration of political parties.
* The deletion of Paragraph 3 from the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, pertaining to disqualification of legislators in case of a party split.
And, whether the ECI's factual findings and method of conducting a majority test were valid.

3. Key Facts

• Political Party: Kerala Congress (Mani) (KC(M)) is a recognised State Political party in Kerala, holding the reserved symbol 'two leaves'.
• Leadership Dispute: Following the demise of the Chairman, K.M. Mani, on 09.04.2019, a dispute arose between two factions led by P.J. Joseph (Working Chairman) and Jose K. Mani (Vice Chairman) regarding the party's leadership, particularly the Chairmanship.
• ECI Petition: On 18.10.2019, two MLAs and two MPs from the Jose K. Mani group petitioned the ECI, alleging the existence of rival factions within KC(M) and seeking a determination under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, to allot the symbol based on the relative numerical strength in the party's legislative and organisational wings.
• ECI Decision: The ECI, by a 2:1 majority, found that a split existed in KC(M) and, applying a majority test, granted the 'two leaves' symbol to the group led by Jose K. Mani.
• ECI's Factual Basis: The ECI noted:
  • Both groups held separate Steering Committee meetings and made divergent decisions regarding candidates for the Pala Assembly by-election.
  • Four out of seven elected legislators supported the petition claiming rival factions, indicating a split in the legislative wing.
  • Both parties claimed majority support in the State Committee but failed to submit original, undisputed lists of members.
  • The ECI conducted a majority test among 305 members (common to both lists out of a total 450 State Committee members), finding that 175 members supported the Jose K. Mani group.
• Judicial History: The ECI's decision was challenged in writ petitions before the Kerala High Court by P.J. Joseph and another member. The single judge dismissed these petitions, upholding the ECI's order. The present appeals were filed against the single judge's judgment. Civil court litigations also occurred regarding party leadership and constitution, which the ECI had considered.

4. Arguments (Appellants vs. Respondents)

• Appellants' (P.J. Joseph group) Arguments:

  • Redundancy of Para 15: Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, had become redundant after the insertion of Section 29-A in RPA, 1951 (for party registration) and the deletion of Paragraph 3 from the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (which dealt with party splits for anti-defection purposes). These legislative changes rendered the ECI's power under Para 15 invalid or inapplicable.
  • Peripheral Jurisdiction: The ECI’s jurisdiction in symbols allocation is peripheral, and it should not decide fundamental disputes like party splits, especially when civil courts are seized of related matters (e.g., Chairmanship).
  • Lack of Evidentiary Basis for Split: The ECI's finding of a "split" was perverse, based on insufficient and factually incorrect materials (e.g., alleged parallel meetings for by-elections, older affidavits not specifically affirming split allegiance).
  • Flawed Majority Test: The ECI erred by conducting a majority test on an incomplete list of State Committee members (305 out of 450) and failed to first consider adherence to the party constitution. The affidavits produced by Jose K. Mani were not sworn for the purpose of demonstrating support for a "splinter group."
  • Disregard of Civil Court Orders: The ECI improperly ignored pronouncements by civil courts regarding the party's internal matters.
  • No Class Action Notice: The ECI should have put all primary members of the party to notice, as the dispute was akin to a class action.

• Respondents' (Jose K. Mani group & ECI) Arguments:

  • ECI's Plenary Powers: The ECI possesses plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution for conducting elections, which inherently includes the power to allot symbols and resolve disputes under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968.
  • Distinct Statutory Frameworks: The Symbols Order, 1968, operates independently in the field of symbol allocation, distinct from Section 29-A of RPA, 1951 (registration) and the Tenth Schedule (defection), which address different aspects of electoral law. There is no conflict or redundancy.
  • Consistent Precedent: The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the ECI's powers under Paragraph 15, even after the legislative changes, reaffirming the principles laid down in Sadiq Ali.
  • Valid Factual Findings: The ECI's finding of a split was based on sufficient and reasonable evidence, including divergent decisions, legislative wing support, and claims of majority, and such factual findings should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
  • Justified Majority Test: Given the unreliability of the full State Committee member lists provided by both factions (as noted by the ECI and civil courts), the ECI was justified in conducting the majority test on the common undisputed members. The practical difficulties of verifying primary members also support this approach, as per Sadiq Ali.
  • Civil Court Orders not Binding: The ECI is an independent constitutional body, and its decisions on symbol allocation are not subservient to civil court orders on internal party disputes.

5. Court’s Reasoning

• Plenary Powers of ECI (Article 324): The Court affirmed that ECI's power under Article 324 of the Constitution is "independent, unbridled and absolute" for the superintendence, direction, and control of elections. The Symbols Order, 1968, was validly made under this plenary power to ensure purity and fairness in elections, particularly regarding symbol allocation.
• No Redundancy of Paragraph 15: The Court unequivocally declared that Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, has not become redundant.
  • Distinction from RPA, 1951 (Section 29-A): Section 29-A of RPA, 1951, deals with the registration of political parties, granting certain privileges (e.g., receiving contributions) and regulating their activities. This is distinct from symbol allocation, which is vital for electors (especially given literacy levels) to identify parties during elections. Even with Section 29-A, the ECI's power to allocate symbols (which is a statutory requirement under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961) remains. The Symbols Order, 1968, read with the definition of "political party" referencing Section 29-A, forms a self-contained code for symbols.
  • Distinction from Tenth Schedule: The Tenth Schedule primarily concerns the disqualification of elected members for defection. Its deletion of Paragraph 3 (allowing splits of 1/3rd legislators) does not affect the ECI's power to allocate symbols. The Tenth Schedule's purpose and scope are entirely different, focusing on legislative membership, not the recognition of a political party for electoral symbols.
• Precedential Support: The Court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the ECI's powers under Paragraph 15 in numerous judgments, including Sadiq Ali, All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, A.C. Jose, Kanhiya Lal Omar, Subramanian Swamy, Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhakom, and Edapaddi K. Palaniswami, even after the introduction of Section 29-A and changes to the Tenth Schedule. The argument that these judgments did not specifically discuss the alleged redundancy was dismissed, as the principle of ECI's plenary power was consistently affirmed.
• Validity of ECI's Factual Findings: The Court found no perversity in the ECI's conclusion of a split based on the available materials, including divergent actions of the factions and legislative support. The fact that the appellants themselves engaged in civil litigation over party control indicated the existence of rival groups.
• Majority Test Justified: The ECI's approach to the majority test was upheld. Citing Sadiq Ali, the Court reiterated the ECI's need to act with "promptitude" and avoid getting "bogged down in a quagmire" of verifying every primary member. Given the unreliability of the full 450-member State Committee lists presented by both sides (as even noted by civil courts), the ECI was justified in conducting the test on the 305 undisputed common members. The Court also found no fault in the ECI's consideration of affidavits sworn earlier if not retracted, emphasizing that mere timing does not invalidate them.
• Civil Court Orders not Controlling: The ECI's role under Paragraph 15 is to achieve its "ultimate satisfaction" based on "all available facts and circumstances," including civil court orders, but it is not bound to accept or follow them implicitly in its distinct constitutional function of symbol allocation. The ECI's jurisdiction is "absolute" and not "peripheral."
• No "Class Action" Requirement for Notice: The Court rejected the argument that all primary members should have been notified, again referencing Sadiq Ali which highlighted the practical difficulties and the need for prompt decisions in such matters.

6. Statutory References

• Constitution of India:
  • Articles 102(2), 191(2), 324, 327, 328
  • Tenth Schedule (Paragraphs 2, 3 (omitted), 4, 5, 7, 8)
  • Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act
  • Constitution (91st Amendment) Act, 2003
• Representation of the People Act, 1950:
  • Section 2(f)
• Representation of the People Act, 1951:
  • Part IV-A (Sections 29-A, 29-B, 29-C)
  • Sections 29-A(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9)
• Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968:
  • Paragraphs 2(h), 2(k), 3 (deleted), 4, 6A, 6B, 6C, 8, 15
• Conduct of Election Rules, 1961:
  • Rules 5, 10
• Kerala High Court Act, 1958:
  • Section 5

7. Precedents Cited

• Sadiq Ali and another v. the Election Commission of India, New Delhi and others [AIR 1972 SC 187] – (Followed, on ECI’s plenary powers, validity of majority test, and practical difficulties of ascertaining primary members).
• All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shillong v. Captain W.A. Sangma and others [(1977) 4 SCC 161] – (Followed, on ECI's special jurisdiction for symbols, excluding ordinary courts).
• Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner [AIR 1978 SC 851] – (Followed, on Article 324 being plenary and operating in unoccupied legislative areas).
• A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai and others [(1984) 2 SCC 656] – (Followed, on ECI as a separate, independent body with plenary powers under Article 324).
• Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and others [AIR 1986 SC 111] – (Followed, on ECI's power to recognise parties, decide disputes, and issue Symbols Order under Article 324).
• Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India [(2008) 14 SCC 318] – (Followed, affirmed Sadiq Ali post-Section 29-A).
• Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhakom and others v. Election Commission of India [(2012) 7 SCC 340] – (Followed, upheld constitutional validity of Symbols Order and ECI's power in splinter group claims).
• Edapaddi K. Palaniswami v. T.T.V. Dhinakaran [2019 (3) SCALE 309] – (Followed, on Paragraph 15 dealing with ECI powers in splinter groups).
• Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Devraj and others [(2016) 1 SCC 423] – (Cited by petitioners, distinguished by the Court).
• Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. [(1998) 7 SCC 105] – (Cited by petitioners, distinguished by the Court).
• Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and others [(2002) 5 SCC 685] – (Relied upon by the Court to explain the nature of ECI's power under Section 29-A and lack of deregistration power).
• Samajwadi Party Case (Dispute 1 of 2017) and V.K. Sasikala v. Election Commission of India [2019 SCC Online Del 7365] – (Cited by petitioners for "test of constitution" argument, implicitly found not to displace Sadiq Ali's majority test where facts warranted).