The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to cancel the allotment of the lotus flower symbol to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)..A Bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the plea filed by T Ramesh, the founder of the Tamil Nadu-based Ahimsa Socialist Party..In his plea, Ramesh claimed that since the lotus flower is India’s “national flower,” its symbol cannot be allotted to any political party, and that such allotment was “a disgrace to national integrity.”On December 8, 2023, he had argued that the lotus symbol was a religious one as well as a national symbol. Therefore, in allotting it to the BJP, the Election Commission of India had acted in breach of its own Rules.When the Chief Justice asked Ramesh how was he aggrieved by the allotment of such symbol to the BJP, he said that the other parties had been discriminated against, and that “gross injustice was being meted out” to them.Accordingly, the Court had directed him to deposit ₹20,000 to prove his bona fide in the matter.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to cancel the allotment of the lotus flower symbol to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)..A Bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the plea filed by T Ramesh, the founder of the Tamil Nadu-based Ahimsa Socialist Party..In his plea, Ramesh claimed that since the lotus flower is India’s “national flower,” its symbol cannot be allotted to any political party, and that such allotment was “a disgrace to national integrity.”On December 8, 2023, he had argued that the lotus symbol was a religious one as well as a national symbol. Therefore, in allotting it to the BJP, the Election Commission of India had acted in breach of its own Rules.When the Chief Justice asked Ramesh how was he aggrieved by the allotment of such symbol to the BJP, he said that the other parties had been discriminated against, and that “gross injustice was being meted out” to them.Accordingly, the Court had directed him to deposit ₹20,000 to prove his bona fide in the matter.