Delhi High Court Upholds Election Symbols Order; Rejects Hind Samrajya Party’s Plea

The Delhi High Court on Friday, January 9, 2025, dismissed a petition challenging the validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which governs the reservation and allotment of symbols in elections.

The petition was filed by the Uttar Pradesh–based Hind Samrajya Party through advocate Parth Yadav. The party had sought a declaration that the Election Commission of India (ECI) lacked the authority to frame the Symbols Order and had further urged the court to restrain the poll body from enforcing its provisions.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal rejected the plea. While pronouncing its order, the bench said," The issue is covered by the earlier judgments of the apex court. We dismiss the petition."

A detailed order is awaited.

In its challenge, the petitioner contended that the Election Symbols Order was not framed by the Central Government, as required under law. It argued that under Section 169 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, only the Union Government, after consulting the Election Commission, is empowered to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. The plea asserted that the impugned order was instead issued directly by the Election Commission, without statutory backing.

It was further argued that the Election Commission does not have the power to independently frame rules, regulations, or provisions to implement the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that such authority rests solely with the Central Government.

The petitoner further went on to assail paragraphs 6A, 6B, and 6C of the Election Symbols Order, which prescribe the criteria for recognition as a national or state political party. It was argued that these provisions are arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The plea maintained that political parties constitute a single class and that no further classification within that group is constitutionally permissible. It was argued that all registered political parties stand on an equal footing, and that the law cannot confer preferential rights or advantages on established parties at the expense of newly registered ones.

Case Title: Hindu Samrajya Party vs Union of India & others

Bench: Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal

Hearing Date: 9 January