Allocation of permanent symbols (brands worth millions of dollars) to political parties in India is unconstitutional, arbitrary and a travesty of the concept of democracy

It violaties Articles 14 and 326. 

Article 14 of India’s Constitution states: 

14. Equality before law.—The State shall not deny to any person  equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of  India.

Article 326 states:

326. Elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of States to be on the basis of adult suffrage.— The elections to  the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; that is to say,every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election. 

Basically, this means that if I am a full citizen of India the I MUST have an EQUAL right to be elected as any other Indian citizen – THERE MUST BE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

Unfortunately, the Election Commission has, through an extremely arbitrary and unconstitutional act, entirely skewed the playing field in favour of its “recognised” parties. 

Citizens nominated as candidates by parties “recognised” by the Election Commission (how can it POSSIBLY distinguish between different citizens in a matter as important as elections?) get access to FREE PUBLICITY about their candidature.

The use of a permanent electoral symbol is like use of a brand name by a private company. Just like use of such brand name is widely recognised across the world as representaing a major barrier to new entrants (the logo of Mcdonald’s is worth tens of billions of dollars), so also the use of “hath” (hand) by Congress is equivalent to giving it and its candidates a hugely disproportionate advantage over new parites or independent candidates. This amounts to the Election Commission granting a permanent right to Congress party over a brand which is worth thousands of crores of rupees in free publicity.

I would like to request any good lawyer, who can, to prepare a PIL challenging this arbitraray and unconstitutional use of powers by the Election Commission of India. 

The practice of allocating PERMANENT symbols to any party must stop immediately. All candidates must be RANDOMLY allocated symbols (or numbers). Why this favourtism of one citizen over another? No other country in the world mangles democracy in this manner, by deliberately giving monopoly rights to existing parties. Particularly, in a country where many illiterates vote on the basis of symbols, this effectively amounts to giving Congress candidates a free 50,000 votes in each parliamentary constituency - without having to earn these votes by directly spreading its (corrupt) message.

How can an ordinary citizen compete against such government-entrenched corrupt monopolies?

Any Indian Supreme Court lawyer interested in taking up this matter?

Background of Election Symbols Order, 1968

Notes taken from this court ruling: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%2053208p.txt

After the commencement of the Constitution on 26th January, 1950, the Election Commission was constituted under Article 324 of the Constitution. On 30th July, 1951, the Commission held a conference in New Delhi with 7 established political parties organised on an all-India basis and discussed the possibilities of allotting a distinctive symbol to each one of them all over India. During the deliberations, the participants generally agreed that the same symbols would be used throughout India for all candidates of a party, both for parliamentary and assembly elections. What also fell for discussion was whether where among several constituencies one of the seats was reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the candidates belonging to a party would be allotted the party’s symbol. The said discussions led to ad hoc recognition [Random decision making without any constitutional basis] being given by the Election Commission to several parties as national or multi-state parties and allotted to them the symbols as were shown against their names.

Drawing inspiration from the first General Elections conducted by the Election Commission in 1951-52, the Election Commission decided to withdraw recognition [Random decision making without any constitutional basis] from such parties whose poll performance was far below the standards to merit further recognition. However, giving due recognition to the fact that some of the parties were new and were not fully organised before the elections, the Commission fixed 3% of the valid votes polled in the elections as the minimum standard for grant of recognition. In the case of national parties, such percentage was calculated with reference to the votes polled in regard to elections to the House of the People, while in the case of State parties, the votes polled in the elections to the State Legislative Assemblies were the factors to be considered. On account of the standards laid down, only 4 political parties remained eligible for recognition as national parties, namely, (1) Indian National Congress; (2) All India Bharatiya Jan Sangh; (3) Communist Party of India; and (4) Praja Socialist Party, and all other parties lost their recognition. Standards for maintaining such recognition continued to be applied by the Election Commission in the Second and Third General Elections held in 1957 and 1962 respectively, but after the Third General Elections the minimum standard was raised by the Commission from 3 to 4%. The same formula was also used by the Election Commission after the Fourth General Elections in 1967.

After the Fourth General Elections were held in 1967, the Election Commission decided to streamline the provisions and procedure so long followed relating to recognition of political parties in the conduct of elections. The Commission was of the view that the provisions relating to recognition of political parties and their functioning, was required to be codified and provision was also required to be made for registration of political parties as a pre-condition for recognition. Accordingly, by virtue of powers conferred on it by Article 324 of the Constitution, read with Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and other powers vested in it, the Election Commission of India made and promulgated the Elections Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which is at the core of the issues being heard in these matters. [However, none of its actions can violate the rest of the Constitution, which it does in this case.]

As the Preamble of the aforesaid Order states, the same was promulgated to provide for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols at elections in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies; for the recommendation of the political parties in relation thereto and for matters connected therewith. It was also promulgated in the interest of purity of elections to the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly of every State and in the interest of the conduct of such elections in a fair and effective manner [Whatever it does, it is not fair but blatantly unfair]. After the Election Symbols Order was promulgated, some of its provisions were challenged on the ground of their constitutional validity. One of the questions raised was whether under the aforesaid Order, the Election Commission could have vested itself with the powers contained in Clause 15 thereof, reserving to itself powers to settle issues in relation to splinter groups or rival sections of recognized political party, each of whom claimed to be the original party. The decision of the Commission was made binding on all the rival sections and groups. The said question fell for the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Sadiq Ali & Anr. Vs. Election Commission of India, New Delhi & Ors. [(1972) 4 SCC 664] and it was held by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court that Clause 15 was intended to effectuate and subserve the main purposes and objects of the Symbols Order. It was observed that the Clause was designed to ensure that because of a dispute having arisen in a political party between two or more groups, the entire scheme of the Election Symbols Order relating to the allotment of a symbol reserved for the political party, was not frustrated. This Court took note of the fact that the Election Commission had been clothed with plenary powers by Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in the matter of allotment of Symbols, the validity whereof had not been challenged. This Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the fact that the power to settle such disputes had been vested in the Commission could not constitute a valid ground for assailing the vires of the said clause. Since the said decision has also been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties in extenso, we will revert back to the same at a later stage in this judgment.

The same view was also expressed by this Court in All Party Hill Leaders’ Conference, Shillong Vs. Captain W.A. Sangma & Ors.[(1977) 4 SCC 161] and in Roop Lal Sathi Vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487], wherein while dealing with the provisions of Clause 13 of the Symbols Order, this Court held that the dispute relating to the procedure for setting up of candidates could be the subject matter of an Election Petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The authority of the Election Commission under the Election Symbols Order, 1968, as a whole was also challenged before this Court in Kanhiya Lal Omar Vs. R.K. Trivedi & Ors. [(1985) 4 SCC 628], wherein it was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the said Order, being legislative in character, could not have been issued by the Election Commission, which was not entrusted by law with power to issue such an Order regarding the specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols that might be chosen by the candidates during elections in the Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies. It was also urged that Article 324 of the Constitution which vests the power of superintendence, direction and control of all elections to Parliament and to the Legislative Assemblies, in the Commission, could not be construed as conferring power on the Commission to issue the Symbols Order. Rejecting the said contention, this Court held that the expression “election” in Article 324 of the Constitution is used in a wide sense so as to include the entire process of election which consists of several stages, some of which had an important bearing on the result of the process and that every norm which laid down a Code of Conduct could not possibly be elevated to the status of legislation or even delegated legislation. It was emphasized that there are certain authorities or persons who may be the source of rules of conduct and who at the same time could not be equated with authorities or persons who are entitled to make law in the strict sense.