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

Here's 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 had affirmed the Election Commission of India's (ECI) order granting the 'two leaves' election symbol to the group led by Jose K. Mani, finding a split in the Kerala Congress (Mani) party.

2. Core Issue
The core issue was the legality and correctness of the Election Commission of India's order, issued under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, allocating the 'two leaves' symbol to one faction of the Kerala Congress (Mani) party. This involved examining:
a. The continued validity and jurisdictional scope of Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, in light of the insertion of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
b. Whether the ECI had sufficient information and correctly applied the 'test of majority' to determine the existence of a split and identify the dominant faction entitled to the symbol.

3. Key Facts
* Kerala Congress (Mani) (KC(M)) is a recognized state political party with the reserved symbol 'two leaves'.
* Following the death of Chairman K.M. Mani, a leadership dispute arose between two factions: one led by P.J. Joseph (appellant) and another by Jose K. Mani (respondent).
* Jose K. Mani's group approached the ECI seeking allocation of the symbol, claiming to be the legitimate KC(M) party.
* The ECI, by a majority decision (2:1), invoked Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, found a split in the party, and allotted the 'two leaves' symbol to the Jose K. Mani faction.
* The ECI's decision was based on observations of:
* Divergent Steering Committee meetings regarding bye-election candidates.
* A petition signed by four out of seven legislators indicating rival factions.
* Claims of majority support in the State Committee by both groups, though original lists were not reliably submitted.
* Due to disputed State Committee lists (admitted strength 450 members), the ECI conducted a majority test on 305 members common to both lists.
* The ECI's decision was challenged in writ petitions, which were dismissed by a single judge, leading to the current appeals.
* Civil court proceedings were ongoing concerning internal party matters (e.g., election of Chairman), but the ECI proceeded with the symbol allocation.

4. Arguments (Appellant vs. Respondents)
* Appellants (P.J. Joseph & Kuriakose P.C.):
* Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, has become redundant following the insertion of Section 29A in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for party registration) and the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law). These legislative changes rendered ECI's power under Paragraph 15 without a constitutional/statutory basis or made its jurisdiction peripheral.
* The ECI's factual finding of a "split" was erroneous and based on insufficient/incorrect information (e.g., alleged parallel meetings, reliance on affidavits submitted for a different purpose without subsequent retraction).
* The ECI improperly applied the 'test of majority' by considering only 305 out of 450 State Committee members and failed to prioritize the "test of constitution" or consider adherence to party rules.
* The ECI failed to consider or give due weight to pronouncements of civil courts regarding internal party disputes.
* The ECI's inquiry was not a "class action" and failed to put all members of the party on notice.
* Respondents (Jose K. Mani Group & Election Commission of India):
* The ECI possesses plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to ensure free and fair elections, including the allocation of symbols.
* Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Tenth Schedule operate in distinct fields and are not interdependent. Section 29A deals with party registration and associated privileges/regulations, while Paragraph 15 addresses symbol allocation in internal party disputes. The Tenth Schedule deals with legislator disqualification.
* The ECI's power under Paragraph 15 has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, even after the 1989 and 2003 amendments.
* The ECI's factual findings regarding the split were based on adequate material evidence (divergent actions, legislators' claims, affidavits).
* The 'test of majority' was appropriately conducted given the unreliability of complete membership lists, and the ECI acted with the necessary promptitude as per Sadiq Ali.
* Civil court orders on internal party matters do not supersede the ECI's specialized jurisdiction in symbol allocation, although they were considered.

5. Court’s Reasoning
The High Court, agreeing with the single judge, extensively reasoned:
* ECI's Plenary Powers: Reaffirmed that the ECI derives "independent, unbridled and absolute power" from Article 324 of the Constitution for the superintendence, direction, and control of elections, including the power to frame the Symbols Order, 1968. This power is independent of Parliament's power under Article 327 or State Legislatures' under Article 328.
* Validity of Paragraph 15: Categorically rejected the argument that Paragraph 15 became redundant. It held that:
* Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, deals with the registration of political parties (for granting privileges like contributions and regulating activities), which is distinct from the allocation of symbols. The removal of Paragraph 3 from the Symbols Order (which earlier dealt with registration) and its reintroduction as Section 29A clarifies the separate functions without diminishing ECI's symbol allocation powers.
* The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution deals exclusively with the disqualification of legislators on grounds of defection, which is entirely unrelated to the allocation of symbols to political parties. Its deletion of Paragraph 3 (allowing for splits under certain conditions) has no bearing on ECI's powers under the Symbols Order.
* Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Sadiq Ali, Subramanian Swamy, Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhakom, Edapaddi K. Palaniswami) have consistently upheld ECI's plenary powers under Paragraph 15, even after the statutory changes of 1989 and 2003.
* Factual Findings: The Court found no perversity or unreasonableness in the ECI's factual conclusions.
* The ECI was satisfied that rival groups existed based on "information in its possession," which included inputs from both factions, civil court proceedings, and legislative actions.
* The ECI's method for determining majority, by focusing on common members where lists were disputed and unreliable, was a practical and justifiable approach, consistent with Sadiq Ali's caution against getting "bogged down in a quagmire" of detailed membership verification.
* Affidavits, even if initially submitted for a different purpose, remained indicative of support unless retracted.
* Civil Court Judgments: While acknowledged, the civil court's jurisdiction pertains to internal party management and interpretation of the party constitution, which is distinct from the ECI's specialized function of symbol allocation for electoral purposes under Paragraph 15. The ECI is not bound by such civil court orders in exercising its statutory powers.
* Promptitude: The ECI's need for prompt action in election-related matters was recognized, precluding lengthy and intricate inquiries into primary membership.
* Judicial Review: The High Court, exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226, found no illegal exercise of discretion by the single judge in upholding the ECI's order.

6. Statutory References
* Constitution of India:
* Article 324 (Superintendence, direction, and control of elections vested in Election Commission)
* Article 327 (Power of Parliament to make provision with respect to elections)
* Article 328 (Power of Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to elections to such Legislature)
* Articles 99, 102, 188, 191
* Tenth Schedule (Disqualification on ground of defection), specifically Paragraphs 2, 3 (omitted), 4, 5, 7, 8.
* Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968:
* Paragraph 2(h), 2(k) (definitions)
* Paragraph 3 (earlier related to registration, now omitted)
* Paragraph 4 (Allotment of symbols)
* Paragraphs 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D (Recognition of State/National parties)
* Paragraph 8 (Choice of symbols by candidates)
* Paragraph 15 (Power of Commission in relation to splinter groups or rival sections of a recognised political party)
* Representation of the People Act, 1951:
* Section 2(f) (definition of political party)
* Part IV-A (Registration of Political Parties)
* Section 29A (Registration with the Election Commission of associations and bodies as political parties)
* Section 29B (Contributions by political parties)
* Section 29C (Declaration of donations received by political parties)
* Representation of the People Act, 1950
* Conduct of Election Rules, 1961:
* Rule 5 (Specification of symbols by ECI)
* Rule 10 (Allotment of symbols by Returning Officers)
* Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act
* Constitution (91st Amendment) Act, 2003
* Kerala High Court Act, 1958: Section 5

7. Precedents Cited
1. Sadiq Ali and another v. the Election Commission of India, New Delhi and others [AIR 1972 SC 187]
2. All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shillong v. Captain W.A. Sangma and others [(1977) 4 SCC 161]
3. Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner [AIR 1978 SC 851]
4. A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai and others [(1984) 2 SCC 656]
5. Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and others [AIR 1986 SC 111]
6. Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. [(1998) 7 SCC 105]
7. Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and others [(2002) 5 SCC 685]
8. Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India [(2008) 14 SCC 318]
9. Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhakom and others v. Election Commission of India [(2012) 7 SCC 340]
10. Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Devraj and others [(2016) 1 SCC 423]
11. Edapaddi K. Palaniswami v. T.T.V. Dhinakaran [2019 (3) SCALE 309]