Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has directed all the political parties to comply with the directions issued by the Elections Commission in 2016 to the effect that no political party should either use or allow the use of any public funds or public place or government machinery for carrying out any activity that would amount to the advertisement for the party or propagating the election symbol allotted to the party.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma declined to issue any directions on a petition filed by Ravi Kant and another against the Bahujan Samaj Party in view of the order passed by the ECI on January 05, 2017, after taking into consideration the views and comments of the BSP.

Court noted that the ECI held that the construction of the statues in question was carried out in the 2009-10 period and therefore the instructions issued in 2016 could not be enforced retrospectively so as to take action against the BSP.

The ECI also observed that in light of the judgment of the high court and direction of the ECI in 2016, any activity using public funds or government resources for propagating election symbol of any party, either by the party itself or by the government, could invite action against the party.

The petitioners challenged the policy adopted by the erstwhile Government of Uttar Pradesh, headed by the then Chief Minister of the State Ms. Mayawati, to construct large number of statues of the Chief Minister; construct parks for the glorification of the Chief Minister and installation of large statues of elephants, which was also the election symbol of the political party to which the said Chief Minister belonged.

The petitioners contended that crores of public money were spent by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the construction of the aforementioned statues and parks using the funds from the state exchequer, only to benefit and glorify a particular individual and her party.

They also contended that if such unbridled action of a person in power is not checked, it will lead to replication of such arbitrary, fanciful and vague policies across the country among the people who are in power, which will be detrimental to the democratic and welfare fabric of the Constitution.

The court was informed that the ECI had refused the petitioners the reliefs sought by them. The ECI held that on the basis of the facts available and the records adduced, it was not in a position to gauge the impact of the construction of statues and the extent of such impact on the minds of the electors.

Therefore, before making any decision regarding the withdrawal of the ‘elephant’ symbol allotted to a national political party, the Commission had to carefully consider the implications of such a withdrawal and the potential confusion it could cause among millions of voters who associate the party with the symbol. Consequently, the ECI held that the reliefs sought by the petitioners were not capable of being granted, and the petitions filed were not maintainable.

However, the ECI had assured that at the time of elections, they would take appropriate steps and measures to see that the statues of Mayawati and BSP’s symbol ‘elephant’ do not disturb the level playing field and give undue advantage to the BSP vis-à-vis other political parties.

The ECI's 2010 order was challenged before the Delhi High Court.

In its 2016 judgment, the Delhi High Court disposed of the matter, requesting the ECI to consider issuing appropriate directions or guidelines under Clause 16A(b) of the Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. These guidelines were aimed at preventing a recognized political party in power from using public places and public funds to propagate its reserved symbol or its leaders, thereby ensuring free, fair, and peaceful elections while safeguarding the interests of the general public and the electorate.

The High Court further requested the ECI to examine whether the actions already taken by the respondent, BSP, as alleged by the petitioners, violated the said guidelines. If so, the ECI was to provide the BSP an opportunity to rectify the issue. Should the BSP fail to do so, the ECI was directed to initiate proceedings under Clause 16A of the Symbols Order for the withdrawal of its recognition.

In compliance with the High Court’s directions, the ECI first issued an instruction on October 7, 2016, directing all political parties to refrain from using public funds, public places, or government machinery for any activity amounting to party advertisement or the promotion of its election symbol.

Subsequently, on January 5, 2017, after considering the views and comments of the BSP, the ECI ruled that since the construction of the contested statues took place in 2009-10, the 2016 instructions could not be applied retrospectively to take action against the BSP.

"In light of the facts, circumstances and developments discussed and having heard learned counsel and senior counsel for the respective parties, we are not inclined to consider or adjudicate upon any of the prayers. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, it is necessary to observe that the instructions issued by ECI on 07.10.2016 or its modified or substituted version shall be complied with not only by respondent No 2 but all political parties in the country," the bench said.

 Case Title: Ravi Kant & Anr Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.