The court struck down orders of election authorities that make a distinction in privileges extended to recognised and unrecognised political parties.
—-
ON Wednesday, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court held the orders of election authorities, preventing registered unrecognised political parties (RUPP) from the use of private vehicles and loudspeakers during campaigning for election polls, as “unsustainable”.
The court was hearing a writ petition in which two orders by the deputy commissioner, Vijayanagara district and another by the returning officer, Hosapete, all three of which prohibited the petitioners from using a private vehicle and a loudspeaker, were challenged. The reason for the restrictions provided in the orders was the non-recognition of the petitioner political party.
The petitioners before the high court were the Karnataka Rashtriya Samidhi Party, a registered political party under Section 29A (registration with the Election Commission of associations and bodies as political parties) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is yet to be recognised, and Raghunanda J.P., a member of the party and candidate for the Yalahanka Assembly constituency.
Grounds for the petition
According to the petition, the orders of the authorities discriminated between registered recognised political parties (RRPPs) and RUPPs in relation to campaigning.
The petition stated that RUPPs are entirely precluded from campaigning by the use of vehicles and loudspeakers, and are required to nominate a candidate before campaigning. On the other hand, RRPPs are granted a permit to campaign with the use of vehicles and loudspeakers even without nominating a candidate, and such expenditure is booked against the account of the political party.
On the violation of rights, the petition claimed that RUPPs are denied the right to campaign. It further claimed that the orders of the authorities violated the right of officers or candidates to a level-playing field, and to free and fair elections. It alleged that by expanding the application of distinction beyond the application of the law, the orders were arbitrary, discriminatory and suffered from the fundamental infirmity of being non-reasoned.
The hearing
On Wednesday, senior advocate Dr Harish Narasappa, representing the petitioners, emphasised the provisions of the 1951 Act and traced the genesis of the term ‘recognised political party’. Underscoring the provisions of the Act that distinguish between recognised and unrecognised political parties, he explained that Section 77 deals with the accounting of election expenses once a candidate is elected for such elections, and Section 52 deals with the death of a candidate of a recognised political party before the election polls.
Dr Narasappa submitted that such provisions in the Act don’t empower the electoral officer to prohibit the usage of a private vehicle and a loudspeaker by a political party towards its campaign.
Another contention was raised by Dr Narasappa that the Model Code of Conduct, notified in terms of Section 77 of the Act, has no provision empowering the authorities to make any distinction between recognised and unrecognised political parties prior to the stage of nominations of those standing for elections.
Considering the arguments raised by the petitioners, the court declared the impugned orders of the authorities as “unsustainable”. In view of the pending filing of the statement of objections by the respondent election commission, the court granted two interim prayers, namely, directing district election officers to grant vehicle and loudspeaker permits to the office bearers of Karnataka Rashtriya Samithi Party on the same footing as RRPPs for campaigning, and directing the returning officers to grant vehicle and loudspeaker permit to the members of the party on the same footing as RRPPs for campaigning.
