Delhi High Court rejects VCK party's plea for allotment of Pot symbol to contest 2024 elections

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party for the allotment of "pot" symbol to contest the 2024 general elections [Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi]..The High Court found merit in the Election Commission of India's (ECI) stance that the VCK, being an unrecognised registered party, could not claim the concession of getting a common symbol allotted to it a third time without securing at least 1 per cent of votes in a previous election. .The matter was initially before the ECI, which dismissed VCK's application for the allocation of the pot symbol last month. On April 1, Justice Sachin Datta declined to interfere with the ECI's decision."Since the election process for the upcoming election for the year 2024 has already been set in motion, it is too late in the day to interfere with the same and the remedy of the petitioner lies under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ... I find no merit in the present petition (by VCK) and the same is, accordingly, dismissed," the Court added in its order. .By way of background, the VCK had sought to use the common pot symbol to contest the Lok Sabha elections from Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Kerala.On March 27, 2024, the ECI dismissed VCK's application for the allotment of such a common symbol on finding that the party did not satisfy a condition laid down in para 10B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.Para 10B of the Election Symbols Order, among other things, deals with concessions to electoral candidates set up by registered, unrecognized political parties (such as VCK). The concession here refers to the allotment of a common symbol to such parties. .The Delhi High Court observed that this provision extends such concessions to a (unrecognized, registered) political party for:- any two general elections to the House of People; or- any two general elections to a State Legislative Assembly; or- any one general election to the House of People and one general election to the State Legislative Elections, as the party may choose..Once the party has availed the concession on any two such elections (as described above), it can avail the concession a third time only if it gets at least 1 per cent of votes during an earlier election when it availed the concession. .In VCK's case, the Court found force in the ECI's stance that the party has already availed the concession (of getting a common symbol, despite being an unrecognized party) twice - once during the 2016 legislative assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, and once for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections when it set up candidates in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. However, it did not get 1 per cent of the votes in either of these elections, which the Court opined meant that it (being an unrecognized, registered party) was not eligible to avail of the concession of being allotted a common symbol a third time for the upcoming polls. "The petitioner (VCK) has clearly availed the concession on two previous occasions. Therefore, for the purpose of availing the concession for another occasion, it must comply with the requirement of Explanation (ii) of para 10B (B) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The petitioner does not seriously dispute that it does not fulfil the said requirement," the Court noted. .In making this observation, the Court rejected the VCK's argument that the concession could be availed on every occasion where the party decides to put up candidates in States where it has not contested before, regardless of whether it has availed the concession in the previous Lok Sabha/ Legislative Assembly Elections in different States.The VCK had argued that in Kerala, Telangana and Karnataka, it has never previously requested for the allotment of any common symbol. As such, the VCK had asserted that its plea for the allocation of the pot symbol for these States can be considered and allowed. The Court, however, disagreed. "This interpretation is inconsistent with the opening words of para 10B, which, inter-alia, contemplates grant of concession for the purpose of election to the 'House of People'; it does not create any State wise dispensation for the purpose of election to the 'House of People,'" the Court said before dismissing VCK's plea. .Senior advocates Rajiv Nayyar and Dayan Krishnan along with advocates Rishi Agrawala, Devika Mohan, Ankit Banati, Parminder Singh, Prabhav Bahuguna, Abhay Agnihotri and Harsh Mittal appeared for the VCK. Standing Counsel Ankit Agarwal along with advocates Ashish Shukla and Atul Raj represented the ECI. .[Read Judgment]