Holding

Clause 10A is a constitutionally valid, non‑arbitrary provision; the six‑year grace period is rational and cannot be read down, and a party’s symbol is not property.

Summary

Subramanian Swamy, as president of the de‑recognised Janata Party, challenged Clause 10A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which allows a six‑year grace period for a party that loses its recognised status to retain its exclusive symbol. He argued that the provision was arbitrary, violated Article 14 and that a party’s symbol is an intellectual property that cannot be taken away. The Court examined the statutory scheme, held that the six‑year period is a rational measure linked to the timing of general elections and is not irrational or arbitrary. It rejected the contention that the clause could be read down to remove the time limit, emphasizing that such a reading would create absurdity with other provisions. The Court also held that a political party’s symbol is not property and may be withdrawn by the Election Commission, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of Clause 10A (the six‑year grace period) of the Symbols Order under Article 14.
Whether Clause 10A can be read down to eliminate the six‑year limitation.
Whether a political party’s election symbol constitutes property or intellectual property.
Whether a de‑recognised party can retain its reserved symbol permanently, creating a third category of symbols.

Legislation cited

Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961s. 10, s. 5
General Clauses Act, 1897
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 298, s. 29A, s. 29C, s. 2(h)

Subjects

Election symbolsDe‑recognition of political partyReserved symbolArticle 14ArbitrarinessStatutory interpretationIntellectual propertyElection Commission

Judgment

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 846 ~~

A SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
V.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF !NOIA THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
(Civil Appeal No. 5803 of 2008) ~ .
B SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

[ASHOK BHAN AND V. S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order,
c 1968 - Clauses 1DA, 5, 6, 6A, 68 and 6C - De-recognition of
Political party as a recognized political party - Challenge to
de-mcognition set aside right upto Supreme Court - In the
meantime, by amendment of Symbols Order, Clause 10A in-
serted providing for retention of its symbol by a de-
reorganiszed political party for six years as a grace period - .,,
D ~

Provision challenged as irrational, arbitrary and undemocratic
- Election Commission as well as High Court setting aside
the challenge and upholding Clause 1OA - On appeal, held:
The provision is not arbitrary, irrational or undemocratic - The
grace period of six years for retention of symbol is rational -
E Reading down the provision by ignoring the limit of six years
is not permissible since the language of the provision is clear
and since such reading down will lead to absurdity in the wake
of Clauses 5 and 6 - In absence of challenge to clauses 5
and 6 also, challenge to Clause 1OA fails - The symbol of a
F political party cannot be treated as 'intellectual property' as it
does not have the concept of monetary implications - Repre-
sentation of People Act, 1951 - s. 29A- Interpretation of Stat-
utes.
After de-recognition of 'Janata Party' as a recognized
G
political party, it lost its reserved symbol. Appellant (presi-
dent of the party) approached the Election Commission
asking for continuance of the reservation of its symbol.
The order of de-recognition was also challenged before

H 846
). . ..J
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v ELECTION COM. OF !NOIA 847
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

this Court by filing SLP. During the pendency thereof, Elec- A
tion Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 was
amended, whereby clause 10A was inserted which al-
lowed a period of six years as a grace period to retain its
symbol, even after the party lost its status as a recognized
; I
party. Ultimately the SLP was dismissed in limine. B
Appellant approached Election Commission com-
plaining against clause 1OA and proposed the amendment
so as to enable the once recognized political parties of
national or State level to retain their reserved symbols
permanently. Election commission refused the proposal. c
Appellant filed a writ petition, challenging Clause 10A as
arbitrary. High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence
the present appeal.

. '(
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
0
HELD: 1. Theory of continuance and permanent res-
ervation of a particular symbol for a particular political
party cannot stand on the ground that after passing of
the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order,
1968, the concept of recognition of a political party and E
the concept of a reserved symbol for that party must be
treated to have amalgamated. [Para 17] [866-E]
2. There is no irrationality or arbitrariness in provid-
ing six years time as an additional period for retaining the
exclusive symbol for the simple reason that within that F
period there is bound to be one or more general elections
on the national level. So also, if any political party has lost
its status in the State Elections, apart from the fact that
upto the next general elections, it will not lose the said
symbol, there is bound to be another opportunity by way G
of fresh elections within six years. It is on this rationale
that the period of six years is provided. This is apart from
the fact that in case of Janata Party it continued to have
and enjoyed the status of said national or State party for
the purposes of next general elections due to the saving H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 13 S.C.R.

A clause vide clause 7. [Para 17] [866 A-C]
3. In absence of any challenge to the constitutional
validity of clauses 5 and 6, the challenge to Clause 1OA
must necessarily fail. Reading these clauses together it
becomes very clear that firstly the reserved symbol is
8 meant only for recognized political party for its exclusive
user. Again the second inference which comes out of such
conjoint reading of two provisions is that if a particular sym-
bol is not a reserved symbol, meaning thereby that it is not
meant for a recognized political party, such symbol auto-
C matically become a free symbol. There is no challenge to
this concept nor is there any challenge to the constitutional
validity of Clauses 5 and 6. [Para 18] [867-A-C]
4.1 The exercise of reading down the provisions of
D Clause 10A so as to avoid the mention of six years in
Clause 10A, is not possible where the language of the
provision is clear, admits of no doubt and no situation
warrants such reading down. Such reading down and
thereby ignoring the limit of six years as provided in the
Clause would render other provisions nugatory. Since the
E language of Clause 10A is extremely clear and its plain
meaning does not, in any manner, bring out any absurd
results, the court would have to rely upon the plain mean-
ing which is the only meaning emerging out of the plain
language of the provision. It is for this reason that the court
F was not in a position to read down the provision so as to
ignore the words "six years" in Clause 10A. Apart from that,
such reading down would lead to absurdity in the wake of
other provisions. [Paras 18 and 20] [866 D-E- 869A-B]
4.2 It is trite law that a statute must be read as a whole
G
in its context. Therefore, the provisions of Clause 10A
should be read in the light of other provisions, namely,
Clauses 5, 6, SA, 68 and 6C. If the provision is read down
ignoring the limit of six years, an absurdity would creep
H in vis-a-vis clauses 5 and 6. In that case a political party
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA 849
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

which is not any more a political party, would still con- A
tinue to have a reserved symbol in total derogation to the
language of Clauses 5 and 6. Such a course is not per-
missible. Clause 10A, therefore, cannot be interpreted in
I ~ isolation. It has to be read in terms of other connected
provisions iike Clauses 5, 6, 6A, 68 and 6C and eilso the B
objects on the Preamble. The conjoint reading of all this
would clearly bring out a position that Clause 1CA would
have to be read and interpreted so that it does not harm
the other provisions of statute. [Para 19) [867-EF 868-C-D)
Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras and Ors. 1985 c
(3) sec 103 - relied on.
Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co.
Ltd. and Ors. 2001 (4) SCC 139 - followed .
... ...
5. Concept of recognition as provided by Clause 5 D
of Symbols Order is inextricably connected with the con-
cept of symbol of that party. It is but natural that a party
must have a following and it is only a political party hav-
ing substantial following in terms of Clauses 6A, 68 and
6C of Symbols Order would have a right for a reserved E
symbol. Thus, it is perfectly in consonance with the demo-
cratic principles. A party which remains only in the records
can never be equated and given the status of a recog-
nized political party in the democratic set up. Therefore, it
is not correct to contend that in providing the symbols F
and reserving them for the recognized political parties
alone, amounted to an undemocratic act. [Paras 14 and
15) [865-C-E]
6. It is not possible to create a third category under
Clause 8 i.e., a party which was once a recognized party G
but has lost its status as such so that it retains its old
symbol for ever and can rightfully claim it. If such a course
is accepted, then the court would have to read something
which is not there in the provisions and this includes
Clauses 5, 6 and 8 as also the impugned clause 10A. Such H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A an exercise would amount to this Court treading danger-
ous path of legislature. (Para 21] [869 C-F]
7. The symbol does not a.nount to a property as the
symbol can never have even the traces of the concept of
a property. A symbol is not a tangible thing nor does it
; .
B generate any wealth, it is only the insignia which is asso-
ciated with the partic:ular political party so as to help the
millions of illiterate voters to properly exercise their right
to franchise in favour of the candidate of their choice be-
longing to a particular party. In the election process, it is
C not merely the individual candidate's personality or his
identity that weighs with the voters. It is undoubtedly a
very relevant factor but along with it, the voter also can
and does vote in favour of the party. It is under such cir-
cumstances that the symbol becomes relevant and im-
D portant. However, all that it provides is the essential as-
sociation that it has with a particular party. The concerned
party would have a legal right to exclusively use the same
but that is not, a property of the party and, therefore, the
Election Commission which is required to ensure free, fair
E and clean elections have every right to deprive a particu-
lar party with a dismal performance of that symbol. The
Election Commission puts a clamp on the right of such a
political party to use the symbol rightfully. The symbol may
be an outcome of intellectual exercise but it does not be-
F come an "intellectual property" which concept has mon-
etary implications. In case of a political party as contem-
plated in Symbols Order, monetary angle is conspicuously
absent. [Paras 22 and 23] [870 F-H, 869-G 871 A-C]
Shri Sadiq Ali and Anr. v. The Election Commission of
G India, New Delhi and Ors. 1972 (4) SCC 664-:: referred to.
8. It is pleaded that even if Janata Party because of
its dismal performance has lost the right to use the exclu-
sive symbol which right it enjoyed for more than 20 years,
H yet its symbol does not automatically become a free sym-
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA 851
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

bol unless it is specifically included in the list of free sym- A
bols by the Election Commission, the Election Commis-
sion should freeze this symbol and this symbol should
not be given as a free symbol. This plea, since not prayed
' I
for in the Writ Petition nor was it even argued before the
High Court, it is left open to the appellant to raise this ques- B
tion before the Election Commission. [Para 24) [871 D-E]
Case Law Reference
1985 (3) sec 103 relied on. Para 19
2001 (4) sec 139 followed. Para 20 c
1972 (4) sec 664 referred to. Para 23
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5803
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 4/10/2007 of D
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W.P. No. 548 of 2006
Dr. Roxna Swamy for the Appellant and Subramanian
Swamy-Appellant-In-Person.
Meenakshi Arora, S.K. Mendiratta and Suvrajyoti Gupta E
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Dr.Subramanian Swamy comes up before us challeng- F
ing the judgment of the High Court of Delhi whereby his Writ
Petition was dismissed. The Writ Petition was filed by Dr.
Swamy in his personal capacity, though he claimed therein a
mandamus for Janata Party of which he is the President. In the
Writ Petition following prayers were made: G
"(a) A writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus to strike down paragraph 1QA
of the Symbols Order as violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India;
H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ~ ' .

A ' (b) A writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to bring
the Symbols Order, notably paragraph 1OA, in line
with the requirement of Article 14 as set out
hereinabove; .j ;

B (c) A Declaration that paragraph 1OA must be read down
as set out hereinabove, in order to meet the
requirements of Article 14;

(d) pass such other and further order or orders as this
c Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."

It seems that the original petition came to be amended
incorporating three new paragraphs. Two paragraphs are re-

D
produced here (other amendments are only formal):
.,. .
"9A. It is to be noted that under the prevailing political
situation in India, Coalition Governments are the
order of the day ~oth at the Centre (for the last more
than 16 years) and in most States. This has resulted
in elections being increasingly fought by alliances of
E
parties, so that in such electoral alliance, each party
,._
agrees to fight a lesser number of seats than what it
would choose to fight on its own. Thus it becomes
increasingly difficult for each such party to individually
meet the recognition criteria laid down by the Election
F Commission in the (Amended) Symbols Order,
wherein, in any event (by the introduction of paras
6A, 68 and 6C) the criteria for recognition have been
enhanced. Even very big parties ruling are presently
threatened with loss of their symbol. Such a result is
G not in consonance with the idea that elections must
reflect the will of the people in all its variety.
.,.. "'"'
98. Even as of today with still a limited right to its symbol,
the petitioner has been prejudiced by other political
parties having been allotted its reserved symbol,
H.
i 4 SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA 853
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

whereby, it is the admitted position of the Election A
Commission, that its use by such other party is liable
to cause confusion in the minds of the public while
voting at elections (See Annexure P-6), which is the
I ~ downloaded "Compendium of Instructions from the
Election Commission of India to the State Election B
Commissions."):

(a) In the 2002 elections to local bodies ion Andhra
. Pradesh, the Janata Party's reserved symbol
was actually allotted and utilized by another
party the Telegu Rashtra Samiti, which has c
nothing to do with and does not share the ideals
and principles of the Janata Party. The Janata
Party's objections were rejected by the order
dt. 20.06.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh Election
~
Commissioner, (appended hereto asAnnexure D
P-7) which actually held:
''The Symbol "Halder Within Wheel" has now
become popular among the people as the
symbol of TRS because of its participation in
the elections" (emphasis supplied)" E

(b) Again in the 2003 elections to local bodies in
Kerala, the Janata Party's symbol was put on
the List of Free Symbols (Annexure A-8 hereto);
'(
and was allotted to independent candidates. F
If this is the position, even when the Janata Parfy can
avail of the concession of Paragraph 1QA the situation
is bound to deteriorate when the concession is no
longer available."
G
3. The petitioner contended in this writ petition that Janata
Party was a recognized national political party and thus had a
· reserved symbol of Chakra Haldar. The said Janta Party lost its
status as a national party because of its poor performance in
General Elections in 1996 and by an order dated 27.9.2000 of
H
~
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A the Election Commission, it ceased to be a recognized politi-
cal party. It is not disputed that the order dated 27.9.20QQ has
become final and has been upheld right upto this Court. Being
a recognized political party of a national and/or State stature it
had a reserved symbol being Chakra Haldar, i.e. a farmer car-
B rying Plough within a wheei. As a result of its de-recognition as
a recognized political party .it lost its right to have exclusive sym-
bol, more particularly due to the provisions of the Election Sym-
bols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter re-
ferred to as "the Symbols Order"). The said Symbols Order owes
c its existence to a Standing Order No.2959 dated 31s1 August,
1968 and is passed in exercise of powers conferred by Article
324 of the Constitution of India read with Section 29A of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) and Rules 5
and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. It deals with
0
the symbols of the political parties. ..
4. Before this writ petition was filed, on losing the reserved
symbol, as a result of its de-recognition as a recognized politi-
cal party, the appellant had approached the Election Commis-
sion insisting upon the continuance of the r~servation of the
E aforementioned symbol of Janata Party. As has already been
pointed out, after the derecognition of Janata Party as a recog-
nized party, a Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) No.2Q8Q7
of 2QOQ was filed in this Court. In this SLP the only challenge
was to the de-recognition order dated 27.9.2QQQ. However,
F during the pendency of this SLP, on 1.12.2QQQ, by notification
No.56/2000/Jud.lll the Election Commission amended the Sym-
bols Order and among other amendments inserted Clause 1QA
therein. This Court dismissed the aforementioned SLP on
15.1.2001 in limine. The decision of de-recognition of Janata
G Party has, therefore, become fait-accompli.
5. The appellant thereafter approached to the Election
Commission complaining mainly against clause 1QA in 2QQ1 r
(the date of this complaint is not known) as due to that provision
the symbol of Janata Party could have a limited life of six years
H only while the appellant wanted to retain that symbol perma-
t ~ SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF !NOIA 855
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

nently for this party. The appellant was invited by the Election A
Commission to submit his proposals in respect of the symbol
problem of de-recognised party which had earlier enjoyed th~
privilege of an exclusive symbol. There was then an unexplicaple
' )
lull for about 4 years. The appellant claims that on 26.2.2005 he
::.uggested that the Symbols Order should be amended so as §
to enable the once recognized political parties of national or
State level to retain their reserved symbols permanently. On
14.7.2005 this proposal was refused by the Election Comrnis-
sion relying on the judgment of this Court in Janata Da(
Samajwadi v. Election Commission [AIR 1996 SC 577]. T~is c
prompted the appellant to file a writ petition in the High Court
which writ petition came to be dismissedJ necessitating.,the
present SLP.

6. The whole attack of the petitioner was thus directed
~
... against clause 1OA which was added by amendment of Elec- D
tion Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 as back
as on 1.12.2000 in the writ petition as also during the argument
before the High Court The basis of the argument before the
High Court was the vice of arbitrariness of that provision inas-
much as it allowed a period of 6 years (only) as a grace period E
to retain its symbol which was earlier rightfully reserved for it,
even after the said party lost its status, as a recognized party
due to its dismal performance, in national or State election. The
same stance is now taken before us by Dr.Swamy having failed
to convince the High Court on that issue. In addition Dr. Swamy F
urges that a direction should issue from this Court to amend the
said clause 1OA suitably.
7. To appreciate the contentions raised during an elabo-
rate debate before us it would be better to consider some rel-
evant provision of the Symbols Order, as it stands now, along G
with the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act and Rules
thereunder and other allied provisions.
8. Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Election Com-
mission is empowered to frame its Regulations. Rules 5(1) and
H
..

856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008J 13 S.C.R.

A 10(4) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 provide that
every candidate at an election shall be allotted a different sym-
bol subject to such restriction as the Election Commission may
specify. In exercise of its plenary power of superintendence,
regulation and control of elections to Parliament and State leg- • ·
B islatures under that Article the Election Commission has pro-
mulgated the said Symbol Order as early as in 1968. History
tells us that though the first election was held in 1951 immedi-
ately after the constitution, there was no such regulation on the
anvil. Perhaps the multiplicity of the political parties in the after
c years necessitated promulgating the Symbols Order. The Pre-
amble of the Order should open a window for us ushering in
some light for the proper interpretation thereof.
"AN ORDER
to provide for specification, reservation, choice and .
D
allotment of symbols at elections in Parliamentary and
Assembly Constituencies, for the recognition of political
parties in relation thereto and for matters connected
therewith.

E S.O. 2959, dated the 31st August, 1968 - WHEREAS,
the superintendence, direction and control of all elections
to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State are
vested by the Constitution of India in the Election
Commission of India;
F AND WHEREAS, it is necessary and expedient to provide,
in the interest of purity of elections to the House of the
People and the Legislative Assembly of every State and
in the interest of the conduct of such elections in a fair and
efficient manner, for the specification, reservation, choice
G and allotment of symbols, for the recognition of political
parties in relation thereto and for matters connected
therewith.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of powers conferred by
Article 324 of the Constitution [read with section 29A of
H
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA 857
t ...
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) A
and rules 5 and 10 of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961
and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Election
Commission of India hereby makes the following Order."
~ ) Seeing following provisions would 'be apposite:
B
"2(h) "political party" means an association or body of
individual citizens of India registered with the
Commission as a political party under Section 29A
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ;
2(2) The General Clauses Act, 1897 shall, as far as may c
be, apply in relation to the interpretation of this Order
as it applies in relation to the interpretation of a
Central Act."
,, 'f
5. ' the purpose of
Classification of Symbols (1) For
D
this Order Symbols are either reserved or free.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Order, a reserved
symbol is a symbol which is reserved for a recognized
political party for exclusive allotment to contesting
candidates set up by that party. E
(3) A free symbol is a symbol other than a reserved
symbol.
6. Classification of Political Parties - (1) For the
purposes of this order and for such other purposes F
as the Commission may specify as and when
necessity therefore arise, political parties are either
recognized political parties or unrecognized political
parties.
(2) A recognized political party shall either be a National G
Party or a State party.
6A. Conditions for recognition as a National party - A
political party shall be treated as a recognized
National Party, if, and only if, -
H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
...'

A either (A)(i) the candidates set up it, in any four or
more States, at the last general election to the House
of People, or to the Legislative Assembly of the State
concerned, have secured not less than six percent of
the total valid votes polled in their respective States
' .. <
B at that general election; and (ii) in addition, it has
. returned at least four members to the House of the
People at the aforesaid last general election from
any State or States;

or (B)(i) its candidates have been elected to the
c House of the People, at the last general election to
that House, from at least two percent of the total
number of parliamentary constituencies in India, any
fraction exceeding one-half being counted as one;
and (ii) the said candidates have been elected to
D that House from not less than three States.
.,.
1'

68. Conditions tor recognition as a State party - A
political party, other than a National party, shall be
treated as a recognized State Party in a State or
States, if, and only, if -
E
either (A)(i) the candidates set up by it, at the last
general election to the House of the People, or to the
Legislative Assembly of the State concerned, have
secured not less than six percent of the total valid
F votes polled in that State at that general election;
and (ii) in addition, it has returned at least two
members to the Legislative Assembly of the State at
the last general election to that Assembly;
or (B) it wins at least three percent of the total number
G of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State,
(any fraction exceeding one-half being counted as
one), or at least three seats in the Assembly,
whichever is more, at the aforesaid general election .

6C. Conditions for continued recognition as a National
H
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OFINDIA 859
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

or State Party - If a political party is recognized as A·
a National party under paragraph 6A, or as a State
party under paragraph 68, the question whether it
shall continue to be so recognized after any
subsequent general election to t~e House pf the
People or, as the case may be, to the Legislative s L\
Assembly or the State concerned, shall be. dependent
upon the fulfillment by it of the conditions ~pecified in
the said paragraphs on the resuit of that general
election.

7. Savings and Interpretation (1) Notwithstanding c'
anything contained in paragraphs 6A, 68 or 6C, if
any political party stands recognized, immediately
before the commencement of the Election Symbols
(Reservation and Allotment) Amendment Ordar,
2000, either as a National party or as a State Party
in some State or States, the said party shall continue
to have and enjoy the status of such National or State
party for the purposes of the next general elections,
to be held after the commencement of the said Order,
to the House of the People or, as the case may be, E ':!
to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned,
and its continued recognition as such National or
State party shall thereafter be dependent upon the
fulfillment by it of the conditions specified in paragraph
6A or, as the case rnay be, paragraph 68. F
(2) xx xx xx xx
8. Choice of Symbols by candidates of National and
State Parties and allotment thereof -
(1) A candidate set up by a National Party at any election G
in any constituency ir:i India shall choose, and shall
be allotted, the symbols reserved for that party and
no other symbol.

(2) A candidates set up by a State Party at an election H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 13 S.C.R.

A in any constituency in a State in which such party is
a State Party, shall choose, and shall be allotted the
symbois reserved for that party in that State and no
other symbol.

(3) A reserved symbol shall not be chosen by, or allotted
B to, any candidate in any constituency other than a
candidate set up by a National Party for whom such
symbol has been reserved or a candidate set up by
a State Party for whom such symbol has been
reserved in the State in which it is a State party even
c if no candidate has been set up by such National or
State Party in that constituency.

10A Concession to candidates set up by an
unrecognized party which was earlier recognized
as a National or State party - If a political party,
D
which is unrecognized at present but was a
recognized National or State party in any State or
Union Territory not earlier than six years from the
date of notification of the election, sets up a
candidate at an election in a constituency in any State
E or Union territory, whether such party was earlier
recognized in that State or Union territory or not, then
such candidate may, to the exclusion of all other
candidates in the constituency, be allotted the symbol
reserved earlier for that party when it was a
F recognized National or State party, notwithstanding
that such symbol is not specified in the list of free
symbols for such State or Union territory, on the
fulfillment of each of the following conditions, namely:-
(a) that an application is made to the Commission
G
by the said party for the exclusive allotment of
that symbol to the candidates set up by it not
later than the third day after the publication in
the Official Gazette of the notification calling
the election;
H
~ .. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA 861
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

(b) that the said candidate has made a declaration A
in his nomination paper that he has been set up
by that party at the election and that the party
has also fulfilled the requirements of clauses
~ ) (b}, (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 13 read with
paragraph 13A in respect of such candidate; B
and
(c) that in th9 opinion of the Commission there is
no reasonable ground for refusing the
application for such allotment:
c
Provided that nothing contained in this
paragraph shall apply to a candidate set up by
the said party at an election in any constituency
in a State or Union Territory where the same
,j
"'f symbol is already reserved for some other
D
National or State party in that State or Union
Territory."
9. In support of his plea Dr. Swamy firstly pointed out that
Janata Party which came in existence in the year 1977 was
once upon a time a ruling party in the Parliament and was also E
a recognized State Party in number of States. He impressed
upon us that thereafter also it continued to be a recognized party
and had retained its symbol throughout for fairly long period of
over 20 years without any interruption and it was only in the year
2000 when it lost its recognition, it faced the threat of losing the F
reserved symbol of Chakra and Haldar. According to Dr.Swamy,
the said symbol had gone into the psyche of the public for a
long perioq of over two decades and as such there was no jus-
tification in firstly depriving the Janata Party of that symbol and
~ secondly allowing only six years as a concession period. This,
~ G
according to Dr. Swamy, was an arbitrary exercise and the said
I "'T provision of clause ~ OA suffered from arbitrariness and, there-
fore, did not pass the acid test of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. Dr.Swamy also adds that to deprive a political party of
its symbol would amount to an undemocratic act.
H
"i\
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ~
'

A 10. Dr.Swamy also very earnestly urged that the symbol
was conceived after a considerable intellectual exercise and
. thus became an intellectual property which could not be taken
away by a legislation and at any rate a provision like the im-
pugned provision and providing only six years time for its reten-
B tion with the Janata party would not be justifiable. In short
"'
Dr.Swamy contends that "once a symbol always a symbol".
11. As against this Ms.Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Commission firstly supported the
High Court judgment and pointed out that the petition suffered
c from basic defects which were of vital nature. Learned counsel
,. also took us through the historical background of Symbols Or-
der and pointed out that the symbol was integrally and inextri-
cably connectE!d with the concept of recognition of the party and
since the appellant had never challenged and indeed could not
D so challenge the de-recognition of Janata Party as a recog- • ...
nized political party, there was no question of it being allowed
to insist on a reserved symbol which was the prerogative only
of the recognized political party. She further took us through the
aforementioned provisions and pointed out that the Symbols
E Order recognize only two kinds of symbols, they being, the re-
"·
served symbols and free symbols and, therefore, once the party
had lost its reserved symbol, it could be only treated as a free
symbol available to one and all without any exclusivity attached
to it. She further points out that in effect the appellant or as the
F case may be, his party, took benefit of the provisions of clause
1OA for more than six years and it was only when it came on the
brink of losing the reserved symbol that the appellant approached
the court and thereby the appellant was not only guilty of latches
but of impropriety also. Learned counsel took us through a few
decisions of this Court which we shall consider in the latter part
G
of this judgment.
1"
12. On this backdrop we have to decide this ticklish ques-
tion of the right of Janata Party to permanently retain its symbol.
There can be no doubt that a symbol particularly in case of an
H established political party is not only having a political implica-
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA. 863
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
,
tion but has also an emotional angle attached to it. This is apart A
from the fact that in India large population of whieh is rural, un-
educated or at time illiterate, the such electorate would natu-
rally have a tendency to identify a party or its candidates by its
> )
symbols. It is perhaps for this reason that the political parties
zealously guard their symbol. But the basic question is whether B
a political party can be deprived of its symbol under such sce-
nario and would such deprivation amount to an undemocratic
step as urged by appellant. In our opinion though the matter of
symbol is extremely sensitive one for a political party, it should
be or remain to be firstly a political party. c
13. A "political party'' is defined in Section 2(h) as an as-
soci!'!tion or body of individual citizens of India registered with
. the Commission as a political party under Section 29A of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as
"RP Act, 1951 ").That Section mandates that an application has D
to be made to the Election Commission for registration of any
party who wants to avail of the provisions of Part IY,A. Th.is ap-
plication must contain the information as provided under Sec-
tions 4(a) to (g) which information includes,,amongst others,
the numerical strength of its members of various categories as E
also its representatives in House of Parliament or any State
Legislature. Such application must_accompa'ny the Rules and
Regulations for its internal functioni!lg. Sub-section (7) empow-
ers the Election Commission a discretion to register such po-
litical party or to refuse the registration: One very important as- F
pect is that vide Section 298 every political party may accept
voluntary contribution, donations or subscriptions etc. So also
Section 29C provides that the political party must prepare a
report in respect of the contributions received by it and such
report shall be submitted ~o the Election Commission. TaxreJief -G
. is also provided under that Section. There is no doubt that .
Janata Party is such a registered political party under Section _
29A. The Section clearly shows that a political party must, there-
fore, have followings. One cannot imagine a political party with-
out any substantial following.
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A 14. As has been pointed out by Ms.Arora for good long 17
years there was no concept of a recognized political party as till
then there was no Symbols Order. It came on the anvil only on
31•1 August, 1968. The purpose of bringing in existence this
Symbols Order was to maintain the purity of elections so that
8 elections should be conducted in a fair and efficient manner as
also for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of sym-
bols as also for the recognition of political parties in relation to
the symbols. The Preamble suggests, among other things, that
there was a need to recognise the political parties for the pur-
poses of specification, reservation, choice and allotment of sym-
c bols. This has probably become necessary on account of firstly
increase in the number of parties on political stage of India as
also because of the emergence of the State parties. It must be
immediately remembered that till then the Symbols were being
granted in keeping with the tradition of a particular party having
D a particular symbol but there was a complete absence of any
Rules on such a sensitive aspect like symbols. This emergence
of large number of political parties on the national and local lev-
els and their interest in the elections necessitated bringing of
the Symbols Order. A new concept of a recognized political party
E came on the anvil via this Symbols Order. Clause 5 of the Sym-
bols Order is extremely significant and recognized only two kinds
of symbols, they being reserved symbols and free symbols. The
reserved symbols are necessarily reserved for the exclusive
allotment to the candidates of a recognized political party
F whereas all other symbols are free symbols. Clause 6 is ex-
tremely important inasmuch as it introduces for the first time, a
classification of political parties as recognized political parties
and unrecognized political parties. It must be remembered that
there are only two classifications provided by Clause 6. Clause
G 6A, 68 and 6C provide for the condition of recognition of a po-
litical party on the national and/or State level. We need not, at
this stage, go into the intricacies of clauses 6A, 68 and GC but
suffice it to say that in order to have that status, the said political
party must be an effective political party in the sense that it must
H share a particular percentage of votes in the national or the State
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA 865
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

level elections or it must have certain number of elected repre- A
sentatives in Lok Sabha or the State Legislatures. It is this con-
cept which introduces that in order to be a recognised political
party, it must perform well in the elections and thereby pass the
;. ) acid test of "following". Therefore, unless there is a following of
·the nature provided in Clauses 6A, 68 and 6C, the political party B
does not remain a recognized political party. Once this position
is clear, the other extremely important position .which has to be
considered is that a reserved symbol is available only for the
recognized parties. Thus, there is a bond created between rec-
ognized political party and its symbol. c
15. Learned counsel for the respondent is undoubtedly
correct in arguing that concept of recognition is inextricably con-
nected with the concept of symbol of that party. It is but natural
that a party must have a following and it is only a political party
• j. .... having substantial following in terms of Clauses 6A, 68 and 6C D
would have a right for a reserved symbol. Thus, in our opinion, it
is perfectly in consonance with the democratic principles. A party
which remains only in the records can never be equated and
given the status of a recognized political party in the democratic
set up. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the argu- E
ment of Dr.Swamy that in providing the symbols and reserving
them for the recognized political parties alone amounted to an
undemocratic act.

16. This takes us to the next leg of arguments that Clause
10A suffers from arbitrariness in providing only six years of ad- F
ditional period to retain its symbol even after a particular politi-
cal party loses its status as a recognized political party. Dr.
Swamy very fairly conceded that he has no quarrel, atleast at
this stage, against the derecognition of Janata Party as recog-
nized political party and indeed he could not have any grudge G
since this Court has repelled the challenge to the decision taken
'I by the Election Commission for such a derecognition. We are,
therefore, left with a limited challenge to the constitutionality of
Clause 10A.
H

•
~
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2QQ8] 13 S.C.R.

A 17. According to Dr.Swamy there was no rationale in pro-
viding only six years under clause 1QA and he wondered as to
why the period should be limited only to six years. We do not see
any irrationality or arbitrariness in providing six years time as an
additional period for retaining the exclusive symbol for the simple ' <
B reason that within that period there is bound to be one or more
general elections on the national level. So also, if any political
party has lost its status in the State Elections, apart from the fact
that upto the next general elections, it will not lose the said sym-
bol, there is bound to be anotheropportunitybywayoffresh elec-
C tions within six years. It is on this rationale that the period of six
years is provided. This is apart from the fact that in case of Janata
Party it continued to have and enjoyed the status of said national
or State party for the purposes of next general elections due to
the saving clause vide clause 7. Under such circumstances pro-
viding of six years period in clause 1QA appears to be perfectly
D reasonable and cannot be said to suffer from the vice of arbitrari-
ness. In the earlier paragraphs we have already indicated that
the theory of continuance and permanent reservation of a par-
ticular symbol for a particular political party cannct stand on the
ground that after passing of the Symbols Order, the concept of
E recognition of a political party and the concept ofa reserved sym-
bol for t:1at party must be treated to have amalgamated. A plain
reading of the provisions would bring out only that result.
18. The appellant then urged that we should read down
F the provisions of clause 1QA so as to avoid the mention of six
years in clause 1QA. In our considered opinion such an exer-
cise is not possible where the language of the provision is clear,
admits of no doubt and no situation warrants such reading down.
Such reading down and thereby ignoring the limit of six years
G as provided in the clause would render other provisions nuga-
tory. Apart from that such reading down would lead to absurdity
in the wake of other provisions. At this juncture we must point
out that in this writ petition there is no challenge to clause 5(2)
which specifically provides that a reserved symbol is a symbol
which is reserved for a recognized political party for exclusive
H
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA 867
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

allotment to the contesting candidate set up by that party. Clause A
6 classifies, for the first time, the "political party" in recognized
political party or unrecognized political party. Reading these
clauses together it becomes very clear that firstly the reserved
symbol is meant only for recognized political party for its exclu-
• ~
sive user. Again the second inference which comes out of such B
conjoint reading of two provisions is that if a particular symbol
is not a reserved symbol, meaning thereby that it is not meant
for a recognized political party, such symbol automatically be-
come a free symbol. There is no challenge to this concept nor
is there any challenge to the constitutional validity of clauses 5 c
and 6. In the absence of any challenge to the constitutional va-
lidity of clauses 5 and 6, the challenge to clause 1QA must nee-
essarily faiL It is for this reason that we have quoted the relief
clauses in the writ petition at the beginning of the judgment in
para 2 above, the reading of which clearly suggests that bar-
~-- ., ring clause 1QA, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge any
D
other clause of this Symbols Order. It is perhaps because of
this absence of challenge that Dr.Swamy wants us to read down
the impugned provisions of clause 1QA.
a
19. It is trite law that statute must be read as a whole in E
its context. We must, therefore, read the provisions of clause
1QA in the light of other provisions, namely, clauses 5, 6, 6A, 68
and 6C. If we read down the provisions ignoring the limit of six
years, an absurdity would creep in vis-a-vis clauses 5 and 6. In
that case a political party which is not any more a politjcal party, F
would still continue to have a reserved symbol in total deroga-
tion to the language of clauses 5 and 6. Such a course is not
permissible. We would have to interpret clause 1QA in the light
of other connected provisions. This Court in Philips India Ltd.
v. Labour Court, Madras and olhers [(1985) 3 SCC 103] ob-
G
served in para 15 as under:
J
"No canon of statutory construction is more firmly
-. established than that the statute must be read as a whole.
This is a general rule of construction applicable to all
statutes alike which is spoken of as construction ex H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A visceribus actus. This rule of statutory construction is so
firmly established that it is variously styled as 'elementary
rule' [See Attorney General v. Bastow (1957) 1 All ER 497]
and as a 'settled rule' [see Poppatlal Shah v. State of
Madras 1953 SCR 667]. The only recognized exception
8 to this well laid principle is that it cannot be called in aid
to alter the meaning of what is of itself clear and explicit.
Lord Coke laid down that: "it is most natural and genuine
exposition of a statute, to construe one part of a statute by
another part of the same statute, for that best expresseth
c meaning of the makers" [Quoted with approval in Punjab
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand (1978) 3 SCR 370]."
Clause 10A, therefore, cannot be interpreted in isolation
as prayed for by the appellant. It has to be read in terms of other
connected provisions like clauses 5, 6, 6A, 68 and 6C and also
1
D th e objects on the Preamble which also has been quoted by us
above. The conjoint reading of all this would clearly bring out a
position that clause 1DA would have to be read and interpreted
so that it does not harm the other provisions of statute.
E 20. Again this Court in Union of India v. Elphinstone Spin-
ning and Weaving Co. Ltd. & Others [(2001) 4 SCC 139], the
Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 21 has made the
following observations:
".... though it is no doubt true that the court would be justified
F to some extent in examining the materials for finding out
the true legislative intent engrafted in a statute, but the
same would be done only when the statute itself is
ambiguous or a particular meaning given to a particular
provision of the statute would make the statute unworkable
or the very purpose of enacting the statute would get
G
frustrated. By no stretch of imagination, would it be open
for a court to expand even the language used in the
Preamble to extract the meaning of the statute or to find
out the latent intention of the legislature i:i enacting tne
statute. As has been stated earlier ..... "
H
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA 869
~ -./ THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

These observations would succinctly bring out a position A
that since the language of clause 1OA is extremeiy clear and its
plain meaning does not, in any manner, bring out any absurd
results, we would have to rely upon the plain meaning which is
the only meaning emerging out of the plain language of the pro-
J i
vision. It is for this rec;son that we were not in a position to read B
down the provision so as to ignore the words "six years" in clause
10A.
21. Another argument which was pressed into service was
that Clause 8 should recognize a third category, i.e., a party
which was once a recognized party but has lost its status as c
such so that it retains its old symbol for ever and can rightfully
claim it. That clause makes it mandatory that a candidate set
up by a national party shall chose the symbol reserved for that
party and no other symbol. So also a candidate set up by the
.... State party shall chose and shall be allotted only the symbol D
allotted to that party and no other symbol. Clause 8(3) provides
that a reserved symbol shall not be chosen by or allotted to any
candidate other than a candidate set up by the national party or
a State party for whom such symbol has been reserved. The
provision is extremely clear. Dr. Swamy, however, wanted us to E
create a third category as has been stated earlier. That is not
possible. If the arguments were to be accepted, then we would
have to read something which is not there in the provisions and
this includes Clauses 5, 6 and 8 as also the impugned clause
10A. Such an exercise would amount to this Court treading F
dangerous path of legislature. We do not think that such a course
is possible. We are, therefore. not inclined to accept that argu-
ment.
22. That leaves us with the last argument that the symbol
amounts to a property and, therefore, a political party cannot be G
deprived of its property. The argument must be rejected at the
outset as the symbol can never have even the traces of the con-
cept of a property.
23. It may be that a recognized political party would have
H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ..
~

'
A a right of exclusive use of the symbol but the Symbols Order
makes it very clear that such right to use the symbol can be lost
with the dismal performance of the party. In a reported decision
in Shri Sadiq Ali & Anr. V The Election Commission of India,
New Delhi & Ors. [(1972) 4 sec 664] this Court was consider-
B ing the controversy regarding the symbols "of two bullock with
~ •
yoke on" which was claimed by two splitted groups of the Con-
gress Party. The Court observed that:
"The answer to this contention is that the result of
differences and dissensions, a political party may be split
c into two or more groups but the symbol cannot be split. It
is only one of the rival sections or groups, as is held to be
that political party under paragraph 15, which would be
entitled to the use of the symbol in the elections while the
other section or group would have to do without that symbol.
D It is not permissible in a controversy like the present to .
dissect the symbol and give one out of the two bullocks
represented in the symbol of the Congress to one group
and the other bullock to the other group. The symbol is not
property to be divided between co-owners. The allotment
E of a symbol to the candidates set up by the political party
is a legal right and in case of split, the Commission has
been authorized to determine which of the rival groups or
sections in the party which was entitled to the symbol."
The observations are more clear than necessary to repel
y
F the contention raised by Dr.Swamy. A symbol is not a tangible
thing nor does it generate any wealth, it is only the insignia which
is associated with the particular political party so as to help the
millions of illiterate voters to properly exercise their right to fran-
chise in favour of the candidate of their choice belonging to a
G particular party. In the election process it is not merely the indi-
victual candidate's personality or his identity that weighs with
the voters. It is undoubtedly a very relevant factor but along with
it the voter also can and does vote in favour of the party. It is
under such circumstances that the symbol becomes relevant
H and important. However, all that it provides is the essential as-
.> .. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. ELECTION COM. OF INDIA 871
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

sociation that it has with a particular party. The concerned party A
would have a legal right to exclusively use the same but that is
not, in our considered opinion, a property of the party and, there-
fore, the Election Commission which is required to ensure free,
• ) fair and clean elections have every right to deprive a particular
party with a dismal performance of that symbol. The Election B
Commission puts a clamp on the right of such a political party
to use the symbol rightfully. We are, therefore, not in a position
to accept the argumentthat symbol is a property of a party and,
therefore, such property cannot be taken away from that politi-
cal party. The symbol may be an outcome of intellectual exer- c
cise but it does not become an "intellectual property" which con-
cept has monetary implications. In case of a political party as
contemplated in Symbols Order, monetary angle is conspicu-
ously absent.
~ ,.,
24. This takes us to the other argument by Dr. Swamy. He D
contends that even if Janata Party because of its dismal perfor-
mance has lost the right to use the exclusive symbol which right
.it enjoyed for more than 20 years, yet its symbol does not auto-
matically become a free symbol unless it is specifically included
in the list of free symbols by the Election Commission. Under E
the Election Rules there is a list of free symbols from which the
candidates selected by a particular party or independent can-
didates can chose the_ symbol. Dr. Swamy urges that in case of
the split in Congress Party the symbol of the National Congress
Party of "two bullocks and the yoke on" and even the subse-
F
quent symbol of one of the groups of the Congress Party, i.e., "a
cow with calf' have not been included in the list of free symbols
and are frozen. He further points out that even after the
derecognition of Janata Party such symbol of Chakra and Haldar
was allotted from amongst the free symbols. He argues that
there is always a glorious uncertainty on the political horizons G
., and the possibility of Janata Party performing well again in fu-
ture cannot be ruled out which would depend on the political
scenario then in existence and in that case Janata Party would
suffer grave prejudice and, therefore, the Election Commission
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
• ....
A should freeze this symbol and this symbol should not be given
as a free symbol. We would have ordinarily considered this ar-
gument which is attractive, however, it is not the prayer in the
Writ Petition nor was it even argued before the High Court.
Therefore, instead of expressing anything on this subject, we i •
B would leave it open to the appellant to raise this question be-
fore the Election Commission. In fact we have not come across
any particular provision in the Symbols Order to freeze a par-
ticular symbol. However, it will be for the Election Commission
in case the petitioner chooses to go before the same to take a
c decision in that behalf. We leave it at that.
25. Since we have considered the questions broadly which
are undoubtedly important questions in the Indian scenario, we
do not want to go into the hypertechnical question as to whether
the appellant could have raised the grievance on behalf of the
D Janata Party in the absence of any formal Resolution empow- ,. "'.

ering him to do so. We choose not to go into that question in
view of the importance of the question otherwise.
"
26. Considering the overall situation we confirm the judg-
ment of the High Court and hold that the petition as it was pre-
E sented was liable to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed.
This would be ofcourse subject to the liberty we have given to
the appellant to raise the additional question about the freezing
of the symbol.

F 27. Under the circumstances there shall be no costs.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.