Copyright infringement not intended

Context: The recent power struggle between the top leaders over the leadership of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) has raised questions about how the Election Commission (EC) deals with such disputes. The EC is the constitutional authority that decides which faction of a party gets to use its name and symbol in case of a split.

Details

• The EC follows certain guidelines and criteria to resolve these disputes, based on the principles of democracy and representation.
• The main guideline is that the EC should recognise the faction that commands the majority support of the members of the party, both in the organisational and legislative wings.
  • The EC may consider other factors, such as the views of the founding members, the ideological orientation, the continuity and stability of the party, and the public perception.
  • The EC may conduct a test of strength, such as a secret ballot or a signature verification, to ascertain the majority support.
• The EC has the power to freeze the party symbol and assign new symbols to the rival factions if it is unable to decide the dispute before an election. The decision of the EC is subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court or the High Court.

How does the EC decide on splits within parties?

• The Symbols Order, 1968, lays down the procedure for resolving disputes over party symbols when a recognised political party splits into rival factions. According to Para 15 of this order, the Election Commission (EC) has the authority to decide which faction or group is entitled to use the party symbol, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and giving a hearing to the representatives of the factions.
  • This applies to both national and state parties that are recognised by the EC (such as the Shiv Sena).
• However, for parties that are registered but not recognised by the EC, the order does not apply. In such cases, the EC usually advises the factions to sort out their differences internally or to approach the court for a resolution.
• The first instance of applying for the Symbols Order, 1968, was in 1969 when the Indian National Congress split into two groups: one led by Indira Gandhi (Congress-J) and the other by S Nijalingappa (Congress-O).
  • The EC decided that the original symbol of a pair of bullocks carrying a yoke would remain with Congress-O, while Congress-J was allotted a new symbol of a cow with its calf.

What happened before 1968?

• Before 1968, the Election Commission of India (ECI) did not have the power to recognise political parties and allot symbols to them. It only issued notifications and executive orders under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
• One of the major events that led to the need for recognition and symbols was the split of the Communist Party of India (CPI) in 1964. A faction of the CPI, which advocated a more radical and militant approach, broke away from the parent party and formed the CPI (Marxist).
  • They approached the ECI, seeking recognition as a separate party and a distinct symbol. They submitted a list of members of Parliament and state legislatures from Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and West Bengal who supported them.
  • The ECI verified the list and found that the breakaway group had a substantial support base in three states. It decided to recognise the faction as CPI(M) and allow them a new symbol.

Except for the test of the majority to resolve a symbolic dispute, is there another way?

• One possible way to address a symbol dispute without relying on the test of the majority is to use the principle of continuity. This means that the ECI would recognise the faction that has the same leadership and ideology as the original party, and not the one that has defected or changed its position.
  • This would ensure that the party symbol is not misused by opportunistic or rebellious groups who want to benefit from the party's name and reputation.
• The principle of continuity has been used by the ECI in some cases, such as the split in the Janata Dal in 1999, when it recognised the faction led by Sharad Yadav as the real Janata Dal. The ECI argued that Yadav's faction had maintained the same policies and programmes as the original party, while the other faction led by Ram Vilas Paswan had deviated from them.
• However, the principle of continuity is not always easy to apply, as it may involve subjective judgments about the party's ideology and identity. Moreover, it may not reflect the democratic will of the party members and supporters, who may have different preferences or opinions than the party leadership.
• Therefore, the test of majority remains a more objective and reliable way to resolve a symbol dispute in most cases.

Must-Read Articles:

ANTI-DEFECTION LAW: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/anti-defection-law-34

REGISTERED UNRECOGNISED POLITICAL PARTIES: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/registered-unrecognised-political-parties

Election Commission of India: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/appointment-of-election-commissioners

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-politics/ncp-leadership-ajit-pawar-sharad-ec-8791218/

Download PDF