Telangana High Court
All India Majliseinquilabemillat vs Election Commission Of India on 17 November, 2020
Author: Challa Kodanda Ram
Bench: Challa Kodanda Ram
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No. 7620 OF 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing No. 2751/TSEC-L/2019, dated 13.04.2020 as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 243-K of the Constitution of India and consequently, seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to register the petitioner political party as filed in Application dated 07.10.2019.
The brief averments in the writ affidavit are that, the petitioner claims to be a political party registered with the 1st respondent with Registration Number 56/03/2019-19/PPS-I, under Section 29-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The objects of the party, as claimed, are:
" a) the party shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
b) All India Majlis-E-Inquilab-E-Millat aims for the economic development of all Indian Citizens, the party is committed towards all Indians having as income and quality of life at par with the developed countries.
c) The party believes that the honesty, integrity and demonstrable competence are key qualification for holding public office. Individual rights are paramount and everyone is free to pursue their personal, social and religious belief without fear of persecution.
d) The party is proud of our Indian tradition but we reject such customs that impede our progress towards a liberal democratic society. Free markets are the best instrument for economic development and reducing inequality. However, fair markets and society need to debate the best mechanism in such cases."
It is asserted that originally, the petitioner proposed to register the name as 'All India Majlis-Itehadul-Millat', however, an objection 2 was raised by the 1st respondent that the name is similar to a local party in the State of Telangana, hence, the President of the party had submitted five alternative names from which the 1st respondent had chosen to approve the name of 'All India Majlis-E- Inquilab-E-Millat', as it is the mandate of the Constitution that under Article 243-K, superintendence, direction and control of preparation of electoral rolls for conduct of all elections to panchayar raj bodies and municipal bodies in the State shall be vested in the State Election Commission. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for registration of their party on the rolls of Telangana State Election Commission vide Application dated 07.10.2019, stating that they intend to contest the elections in the State of Telangana for rural and urban local bodies. The petitioner complied with the necessary formalities like advertising in the newspapers and thereafter, as directed by the 2nd respondent, had also given undertaking that it would not use the abbreviation 'AIMIM'. Though this objection was in the teeth of the recognition already granted by the 1st respondent, the petitioner had given undertaking on 10.02.2020 stating that it would not be using abbreviation 'AIMIM', and would be using 'AIMIM(Inquilab)' whenever and wherever the party name is required, from the time of granting of registration. The 2nd respondent, after constant persuasion, issued a public notice in their website / Gazette dated 18.03.2020 calling for objections. Thereafter, the petitioner received the impugned communication dated 13.04.2020, only on 20.05.2020, rejecting the Application for registration of 'All India Majlis-E-Inquilab-E-Millat Party' directing it to file a fresh Application by changing the name of the political party. It is only 3 through the impugned order, for the first time, the petitioner came to be aware of the objection having been raised by one Mr. Syed Ahmed Pasha Quadri, General Secretary, All India Majlis-E- Ittehadul Muslimeen, vide letter dated 30.03.2020 and thereafter reiterating his objection raised earlier in his letter dated 28.12.2019 stating that "All India Majlis-E-Inquilab-E-Millat Party" is duplicating the abbreviation used by their party, this is not a case of "resemblance" but one of outright duplication of the abbreviation used by their party and further stated that use of similar sounding words with the same initials in the exact same order (AIMIM) is within the scope of the prohibition on names that "resemble" the name of the existing parties and any attempt to register a political party with the exact abbreviation is impermissible under the paragraph 3(7)(iv) of Registration of Political Parties and allotment of Symbols Orders, 2018 and requested the Commissioner to deny the Application for registration of All India Majlis-E-Inquilab-E-Millat party". The complaint of the petitioner is that it was not given an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order and the reasons stated for non-registration / rejecting their Application are not germane, arbitrary and illegal. It is also their case that the respondents, while entertaining their Application, had failed to take note of the fact that there are other parties with similar abbreviation, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a counter-affidavit was filed refuting various averments raised by the petitioner. So far as relevant for the purpose of this Writ Petition, it is asserted that the registration of the party name with the 1st respondent has no relevance nor any bearing for the purpose of local body elections and the 2nd respondent is required to take independent decision in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Constitution and 4 the procedure prescribed has been followed scrupulously. Further, Registration of Political Parties and Allotment of Symbols Order, 2018 empowers the 2nd respondent to take into consideration the objections received where the name of the political parties ought to be registered similar to the political party already registered and reject the same. It is only in exercise of such power, the impugned order was passed. The other averment that the objection raised by the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2019 was not communicated or given to the petitioner was not correct as the petitioner had verified them during their visit to the office of the 2nd respondent and in response to the same, it submitted explanations on 10.02.2020 and 12.03.2020 having knowledge about the objections.
Though the 3rd respondent was represented by a counsel, no counter-affidavit was filed as the challenge is only to the order of the 2nd respondent.
Heard Sri L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Vidya Sagar Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the 2nd respondent and Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
Duty and power of the 2nd respondent to register a political party to enable it to contest elections in a State, more particularly for local bodies, is not in dispute. The reason for refusing to register the name of the petitioner is stated in para 7 of the impugned order as under:
" After examining the objection petition filed by Sri Syed Ahmed Pasha Quadri, General Secretary, All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen and the undertaking submitted by the applicant Sri Syed Tariq Quadri, President of the proposed "All India Majlis-E-Inquilab- E-Millat Party", the Commission has came to the opinion that, the 5 same abbreviation will create confusion among the voters in the State. Earlier there are parties registered with the Commission with similar names and abbreviations like Communist Party of India-CPI and Communist Party of India (Marxist)-CPI(M), but they are initially originated from same party and formed due to split in the party. Whereas in this case, the proposed "All India Majlis-E-Inquilab-E- Millat Party" is not in any way related to the already registered "All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen". With the registration of a new party with same abbreviation, by which an already registered party is popularly known among the general public in the State, may create confusion among the general public."
A perusal of the above paragraph confirms the assertion of the petitioner that there are large number of instances where political parties were registered both at national level as well as the State level with similar names. The reason for rejection, as stated, more precisely is "registration of new party with similar-sounding by which already registered party is popularly known among the general public in the State may create confusion". To rebut the same, the petitioner filed the memo pointing out the dissimilarities between it and the 3rd respondent, as under:
PETITIONER RESPONDENT No.3
Name All India Majlis-E- All India Majlis-E-
Inquilab-E-Millat Ittehadul Muslimeen
Meaning Group of Revolutionary Group of Confident
people Muslim
Objectives Aims for development of Aims for development of
all Indian Citizen (Copy Muslims (as per Google)
of Aims and Objectives of
petitioner party is filed at
pg. No. 21 of writ
petition.)
Abbreviations Our intent to use the AIMIM
Abbreviation as under:
AIMIM(Inquilab)
Or any other except
'AIMIM'
Likewise, there are instances of similar abbreviations to different parties for which registration had been already granted in the State of Telangana.
6
FULL NAME ABBREVIATIONS
Bharat Janalok Party BJP
Bharatiya Janata Party BJP
Telugu Desam Party TDP
Telugu Dharmam Party TDP
Telangana Communist Party TCP
Telangana Congress Party TCP
Navatharam Party NP
Navodayam Party NP
Paramatma Party PP
Praja Paksham Party PPP
Janata Dal (Secular) JD(Secular)
Janata Dal (United) JD(United)
Communist Party of India CPI
Communist Party of India (Marxist) CPI(Marxist)
The petitioner had also filed along with the Writ Petition the particulars of various parties which were registered with similar- sounding names. The explanation given for rejecting the petitioner's case while justifying registration of similarly-situated parties was that some of the parties like CPI-M, CPI were initially originated from same party and the petitioner is not a party which is formed in similar fashion. The said reasoning hardly can be a justifiable one and is not germane for consideration of registration of a political party in the light of the powers granted under the Constitution. The objection of the kind which the 2nd respondent raised is required to be considered in terms of para 7(3)(4) of the Registration of Political Parties and Allotment of Symbols Orders, 2018, which reads as under:
" Where the same free symbol has been chosen by several candidates at such election, then-
(a) If, of those several candidates, only one is a candidate set up by a registered political party without a reserved symbol and all the rest are independent candidates, the returning officer shall allot that free symbol to the candidate set up by the registered political party without a reserved symbol, and to no one else; and if, of those several candidates, two or more are set up by different registered 7 political parties without a reserved symbol and the rest are independent candidates, the returning officer shall decide by lot to which of the two or more candidates set up by the different registered political parties without a reserved symbol that free symbol shall be allotted, and allot that free symbol to the candidate on whom the lot falls, and to no one else.
Provided that where of the two or more such candidates set up by such different registered political parties without a reserved symbol, only one is, or was, immediately before such election, a sitting member of the local body (irrespective of the fact as to whether he was allotted that free symbol or any other symbol at the previous election when he was chosen as such member), the returning officer/election officer shall allot that free symbol to that candidate, and to no one else:
(b) If, of those several candidates, no one is set up by any registered political party without a reserved symbol and all are independent candidates, but one of the independent candidates is or was, immediately before such election a sitting member of the local body and was allotted that free symbol at the previous election when he was chosen as member, the Returning Officer / Election Officer shall allot that free symbol to that candidate, and to no one else; and
(c) If, of those several candidates, being all independent candidates, no one is, or was, a sitting member as aforesaid, the returning officer / election officer shall decide by lot to which of those independent candidates that free symbol shall be allotted, and allot that free symbol to the candidates on whom the lot falls, and to no one else".
In view of the above discussion, the crucial aspect which is required to be considered by the 2nd respondent is that the name of the political party proposed to be registered should not resemble the name of the political party which is already registered with the State Election Commission, thus giving rise to a confusion in the minds of the general public.
In this case, since the petitioner had categorically set out the difference and also the instances where the other political parties have been granted registration with similar-sounding names with the necessary distinctions, there was no reason why the similar benefit should not be extended to the petitioner. 8
In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 13.04.2020. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, keeping in view the aspects mentioned herein-above so as to avoid the allegation of discrimination. The 2nd respondent shall also consider the fact that the petitioner has come forward to add 'Inquilab' in addition to AIMIM. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-----------------------------------
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 17th November 2020 ksld