# [1967] 1 S.C.R. 643

- **Citation:** [1967] 1 S.C.R. 643
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-09-30
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, C. J. M. Hidayatullah, S. M. S!KRf, R. S. Bachawat, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1967-1-s-c-r-643-3896
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Conduct of Eltctibn Rules, 1961, r. S(l)~Powers of Election Commlmtm-Merger of two political parties into one party-Elterion symbol
Df one of the merging parties allotttd to the ntW ptl1'4Y-'1'artin lepat'tlllng agal......Symbol whether can bt taken back from n.w parry and glvm
to the party to which It originally belonged.
In the 1962 general electi<in the Praja Socialist Party had the 'Hut'
as its election symbol In 1964 tlie Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist fartY combined to form the Samyukta Socialist Party, and the Elec>-
tion' Commission allotted the 'Hut' symbol to the new p~. The union
was however short-lived and in early 1965 the Praja SOcla1ist Party again
severed itself from the Soci3fist Party which retained the new name even·
after the separation. The Election Commission on being moved by the
~a Socialist Party withdrew the 'Hut' as the symbol of the Samyukta
Socialist Party and restored it to the Praja Socialist Party. This order
of the Election Commission wa8 challenged by the SamruJ<ta Socialist
Party in a writ petition before the High Coun and the wnt being refined
an appeal by special leave . was filed before this Coqrt. A writ petition
by one of the members of the Samyukta Socialist Party under Art. 32 of
t1ie Constitution was also filed before this Court. It was contended that
unlike the earlier rule the new rule 5 ( 1) of the Conduct of the Election Rules, 1961 only enables the Election Commission to place restrictions on the choice of the candidate or the party but the choice once
made by the candidate or party is final, and that the power to amend the
list of symbols which was Conferred by the last eight words of the fol'81er
rule was no longer there.
HELD: (i) it is incorrect to say
that by changiJJg rule 5(1) and
dropping; the last eight words from that r:ule the . Election Commission
has-aenied to itself the power. to amend the list of symbols. The restrictiotlS which the Election Commission· has framed for the use.of the llYlllbols permit the issuance of fresh notifications if symbols are -reqdited to
be changed. The restrictidns when analysed are these. Before a candidate can choose a symbol it must be free. Before a reserved symbol can
be chosen, the candidate must be accredited to the party whose _symbol
it is and it must be shown by the Election Commission in its notification
as the symbol of the party. Obviously tlurefore, if the. ciu:wnstances
change the notification must follow suit. Parties may come into existence and parties may go ·out of existence; parties may unite or parties
may separate. This will require amendment of the notification. Just as
the Election' Commission allotted the 'Hut' as a symbol by a change of
notification to the Samyukta Socialist Party, it can allot it to anothoc party
if circumstances made ,that course obligatory and just. The Election Commission is required to give effect to conditions of its own making but tbU
does not restrict i1s own powers so long as what it does is in consonance
•644
SUPIU!MB COURT llEPORTS
[1967] I S.C.R.
with facts and the action is dictated by them. It must not of course favour
one party so as to harm others. It must only change the symbol when the
circumstances justify such a charge.
(649 C-F)
(ii) If the merger of Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist Party W38
unsuccessful and before any significant time had passed the Praja Socialist Party bad decided to separate, and if all the leaders of the party and
almost all its original members decided
to quit the amalgamated party,
the benefit of its symbol could not be left to the Socialist
Party which.
in the events that have happened is bearing the name of the unified party.
It is no longer the unified party it was when the· name was assumed. The
'Hut' was the symbol of the Praja Socialist Party and the amalgamated
party chose the 'Hut' rather than the 'tree' because of the greater succe.s
<>f the Praja Socialist Party at the polls. If disagreement led to a quick
break up before th

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
SAMYUKTA SOCIAIJST PARTY
v •
. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.
September 30, 1966
(K. SUBBA RAO, C. J. M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. S!KRf,
R. S. BACHAWAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.]
Conduct of Eltctibn Rules, 1961, r. S(l)~Powers of Election Commlmtm-Merger of two political parties into one party-Elterion symbol
Df one of the merging parties allotttd to the ntW ptl1'4Y-'1'artin lepat'tlllng agal......Symbol whether can bt taken back from n.w parry and glvm
to the party to which It originally belonged.
In the 1962 general electi<in the Praja Socialist Party had the 'Hut'
as its election symbol In 1964 tlie Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist fartY combined to form the Samyukta Socialist Party, and the Elec>-
tion' Commission allotted the 'Hut' symbol to the new p~. The union
was however short-lived and in early 1965 the Praja SOcla1ist Party again
severed itself from the Soci3fist Party which retained the new name even·
after the separation. The Election Commission on being moved by the
~a Socialist Party withdrew the 'Hut' as the symbol of the Samyukta
Socialist Party and restored it to the Praja Socialist Party. This order
of the Election Commission wa8 challenged by the SamruJ<ta Socialist
Party in a writ petition before the High Coun and the wnt being refined
an appeal by special leave . was filed before this Coqrt. A writ petition
by one of the members of the Samyukta Socialist Party under Art. 32 of
t1ie Constitution was also filed before this Court. It was contended that
unlike the earlier rule the new rule 5 ( 1) of the Conduct of the Election Rules, 1961 only enables the Election Commission to place restrictions on the choice of the candidate or the party but the choice once
made by the candidate or party is final, and that the power to amend the
list of symbols which was Conferred by the last eight words of the fol'81er
rule was no longer there.
HELD: (i) it is incorrect to say
that by changiJJg rule 5(1) and
dropping; the last eight words from that r:ule the . Election Commission
has-aenied to itself the power. to amend the list of symbols. The restrictiotlS which the Election Commission· has framed for the use.of the llYlllbols permit the issuance of fresh notifications if symbols are -reqdited to
be changed. The restrictidns when analysed are these. Before a candidate can choose a symbol it must be free. Before a reserved symbol can
be chosen, the candidate must be accredited to the party whose _symbol
it is and it must be shown by the Election Commission in its notification
as the symbol of the party. Obviously tlurefore, if the. ciu:wnstances
change the notification must follow suit. Parties may come into existence and parties may go ·out of existence; parties may unite or parties
may separate. This will require amendment of the notification. Just as
the Election' Commission allotted the 'Hut' as a symbol by a change of
notification to the Samyukta Socialist Party, it can allot it to anothoc party
if circumstances made ,that course obligatory and just. The Election Commission is required to give effect to conditions of its own making but tbU
does not restrict i1s own powers so long as what it does is in consonance
•644
SUPIU!MB COURT llEPORTS
[1967] I S.C.R.
with facts and the action is dictated by them. It must not of course favour
one party so as to harm others. It must only change the symbol when the
circumstances justify such a charge.
(649 C-F)
(ii) If the merger of Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist Party W38
unsuccessful and before any significant time had passed the Praja Socialist Party bad decided to separate, and if all the leaders of the party and
almost all its original members decided
to quit the amalgamated party,
the benefit of its symbol could not be left to the Socialist
Party which.
in the events that have happened is bearing the name of the unified party.
It is no longer the unified party it was when the· name was assumed. The
'Hut' was the symbol of the Praja Socialist Party and the amalgamated
party chose the 'Hut' rather than the 'tree' because of the greater succe.s
<>f the Praja Socialist Party at the polls. If disagreement led to a quick
break up before the new party or its symbol could become
properly
grounded, the reversion to the original position was not only logical but
also eminently just. It was clear therefore that the Election C<>mmissioo
proceeded along the right lines and reached the right
conclusion both
legally and in the light of the faclll ascertained by it from
impartial
eources. [651 EJ
CIVIL APPELLATB JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1653 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 18, 1965 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at
Delhi in Civil Writ No. 701(1)-D of 1965.
AND
Writ petition No. 193 of 1966.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
H. R. Gokhale and J. P. Goyal, for the appellant and petitioner.
N. S. Bindra and R. H.
Dhebar, for
respondent No. I.
(in C. A. No. 1653 of 1966) and respondents Nos. I and 3
(in W. P. No. 193 of 1966).
Purshottam Tricwndas, T. R. Bhasin, S. C. Malik, S. K. Mehta
and K. L. Mehta, for respondent No. 2 (in C. A. No. 1653 of 1966
and W. P. No. 193 of 1966).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hldayatullah, J. This judgment will govern Civil Appeal
No. 1653 of 1966 and Writ Petition No. 193 of 1966.
The
appeal has been filed, after obtaining special leave of this Court
by the Samyukta Socialist Party, through its General Secretary'.
against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab,
November 18, 1965, dismissing summarily a petition under Art.
226 of the Constitution. The petition has been "filed by Mr. Madhu
Limaye, M.P., a member of the Samyukta Socialist Party. These
A
II
c
D
I
'
G
ff
B
c
0
'
G
H
S. S. P. V. ELECTION COMMISSION (HidayaJullah, /.)
645
two pr.oceedings .raise a cornmQn question and cl;J.allenge the action
of the Election Co1'J.Illission in al.Jotting the "Hut" as the reserved
election symbol ·to the Praja Socialist Party, which symbol was
previously reserved for· the. Samyukta Socialist Party. The challenge is on the ground of want of jurisdiction and also on the
basis of fact. The Rule and Notification whereunder the action
purported to be taken are also challenged as unconstitutional in
the petition. The controversy atises in the following circumstances :
The Praja Socialist. Party (popularly known as the P.S.P.)
was formed by a merger of the Socialist Party and the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (known shortly as K.M.P.P.) and was recognised
as· a nationalist Party after the First General Election in 1.952.
The Socialist Party was recognised as a State Party in Uttar Pradesh and Raja:sthan and the Union Territory of Manipur after the
Second General Election in 1957.
In the last General Election of 1962, the Praja Socialist Party was recognised in nine
States and the Socialist Party in Uttar Pradesh, RajasthanandManipur. The Praja Socialist Party secured 12 seats in the Lok Sabha
and 6 want to the Socialist Party. In the Legislative Assemblies
the Praja Socialist Party secured 172 ~eats in 9 States and the ·socialist
Party 47 seats in 4 States .
. In June, 1964 there was a merger of the Praja Socialist Party
and the Socialist Party and a new party, called the Samyukta Socialist Party, emerged. The Samyukta Socialist Party contested
four· bye-elections and the elections in Kerala but thete was a deterioration in the total number of seats. The union, therefore,
was short Jived. On January 31, 1965, even at the inaugural meeting of the National Ad Hoc Committee held at Banaras the two
Parties broke as under. The Praja Socialist Party claims that this
restored the position as it was before the merger while the Samyukta
Socialist Party claims that the merger was final and the Samyukta
Socfalist Party as the united Party continues although some members have been guilty of defection.
These happenings would have had no concern with the Election Commission. or with the Courts but for the procedure for
elections in our country. Owing to the inability of a vast majority of voters to read or mark a ballot, a system of allotment. of
symbols has to be employed. Every candidate is required
to
have a symbol to represent his particular ballot box and a voter
exercises his choice by putting the ballot in the box of his candidate identified by the symbol. The allotment of symbols
is
done by the Election Commission under Rules · framed by the
Central Government. The symbols are of two kinds : free and
reserved. A free symbol belongs to no one in particular and may
be chosen (unless chosen already by some other candidate) by
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967] l S.C.R.
any candidate. Where two or more candidates desire the same
symbol, there is a drawing of lots to detennine who should get
it. A free symbol becomes a free symbol again after it has been
used in an election by a. candidate. Reserved symbols, on the
other hand, are those which the Election Commission assigns
to recognised Political Parties on the basis of their achievement,
which means reaching a prescribed minimum share at the polls.
Political Parties set great store by their reserved symbols probably
because the symbol gets identified with the Party and helps it in
maintaining election appeals and propaganda.
Before the merger, the Praja Socialist Party was allotted the
'Hut' a~ a reserved symbol and contested the First General Election. After 1957 the Socialist Party was recognised as a Political
Party in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan and in the Union Territory
of Manipur and was allotted the symbol 'Tree' which lx:came its
reserved symbol. The 1962 General Elections were fought with
the Praja Socialist Party possessing the 'Hut' and the Socialist
Party the 'Tree' respectively as their symbols. Then came the
merger. The Samyukta Socialist Party claimed and was allotted
the 'Hut' as its reserved symbol and the 'Tree' became a free symbol
again. After the Party disrupted the Election Commission, on
being moved by the Praja Socialist Party, took away the symbol
'Hut' from the Samyukta Socialist
Party and allotted it to the
Praja Socialist Party, allotting at the. same time the symbol 'Tree'
to the Samyukta Socialist Party. The order of the Election Commission was questioned by the Samyukta Socialist
Party by a
petition under Art. 226 of t~e Constitution, and, on the dismissal
of the petition, is questioned in the appeal before us. The same
order is also questioned directly as a breach of his fundamental
rights by Mr. Madhu Limaye in the companion petition.
Two questions arise-the first is : What are the powers of
the Election Commission in relation to the allotment of symbols,
and the second is : Whether in the circumstances, its powers were
legally exercised ? Under s. 169 of the Representation of People
Act, 1951, the Central Government is empowered, after consulting the Election Commission, to make rules generally for the purposes of the Act and in particular to provide for "the manner in
which votes are to be given both generally and in the case of illiterate voters or voters
under physical or other disability". The
Central Government has promulgated the
Conduct of Elections
Rules, 1961 and Rule 5 of these Rules makes provisions for symbols in Parliamentary and Assembly elections. The rule reads :
"5. Symbols for elections in parliamentary and assembly constituencies.-
(!) The Election Commission shall, by notification
in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of each
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
'
G
N
S. S. P. V. ELECTION COMMISSION (Hidayatul/ah, J.)
647
State, specify the symbols that may be chosen by candi·
dates at elections in parliamentary or assembly consti·
tuencies and the restrictions to which their .choice shall be
subject.
(2) Where at any such election more nomination
papers than one are delivered by or on behalf of a candi·
date, the declaration as to symbols made in the nomi·
nation paper first delivered, and no other deciaration
as to symbols, shall be taken into consideration under
rule
10 even if that nomination paper has
been
rejected."
As an argument was grounded on the change of langu;ige from
the former rule, we may quote its relevant portion here for reference
"5. Choice of symbols by candidates:-
(!) The Election Commission shall, by notification in
the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of each
State, publish a list of symbols and may in like manner
amend such list."
Under the power conferred under the existing Rule 5(1) the
Election Conupission has prepared a list of free and reserved
symbols and has notified them from time to time together ·with
the restrictions to which their use is subject. The reserved sym·
bol is indicated in the various notifications either by putting it
against the name of the particular Political Party or by showing
the name of the Political Party in brackets opposite it. The first
of these Notifications was S.O. 2316 dated September, 19 1961.
This showed that the 'Hut' was a reserved symbol of the Praja
Socialist Party in Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat; Kerala,
Uttar Pradesh, Madras, Maharashtra, Mysore, Orissa, Madhya
Pradesh, West Bengal and the Union Territories of Delhi, Himachal
Pradesh and Manipur. In the Punjab, Rajasthan and the Union
Territory of Tripura; the Praja Socialist Party enjoyed the 'Hut'
as an allotted free symbol. The Socialist Party had the 'Tree'
as the reserved symbol in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pra·
desh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and the Union Territory of Manipur
and the same symbol as an allotted free symbol in the other States
and in the other Union Territories except Himachal Pradesh and
Tripura. This notification was replaced by S.O. 2939 of September
22, 1962 and this time the 'Hut' was shown as the reserved symbol
of the Praja Socialist Party in Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mysore, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh.
The Socialist Party enjoyed the 'Tree' as the reserved symbol in
Madhya Pradesh and the Union Territory of Manipur. On October 13, 1964, amendments were made in S.0. 2939 by NotificaMI6 Sup. C. 1./66-13
648
SUPREME COURT IJ!PORTS
[1967] I S.C.R.
tion S. 0. 3666 by substituting the name Samyukta Socialist Party
in all items where the Praja Socialist Party w< s formerly mentioned. Against Manipur the name of Samyuk a Soci~t Party
with the reserved symbol 'Hut' was inserted in place of the Socialist Party and the symbol 'Tree'. The referenc~ to the Socialist
Party and the reserved symbol 'l:roe' against U ttar Pradesh was
omitted. This gave effect to the merger of the two Parties al)d
was ordered in answer to the request for 'Hut' is the symbol for
the combined Party. The final Notification anc the one which is
chalJenged before us-was issued on September ; ., 1965. It supersecles Notification S. 0. 2939. The restrictions on the choice of
symbols by the candidates were restated and they nay be reproduced
here :-
"(!) Subject to the restrictions
specified in paragraphs (2) , (3) and ( 4), the choice of s: '!Ilbols to be
made by candidates at any election in a 'arliamentary
or assembly constituency is a State specifiec in column 1
of the table below shall be made :-
(a) from the reserved symbols specified against that
state in column 3 of the tables, or
(b) from the following free symbols, n:unely :-
(i) bicycle (ii) boat, (iii) camel, (iv) pot, (v)
railway engine (vi) scales, (vii) spade, (viff sparrow and
(ix) two leaveS :
Provided that, in the = of an :lection in the
State of Nagaland, such free symbols shall be ....
(2) Any such candidate sponsored · 'Y a political
party mentioned against the State in column 2 of the
table shall choose, and shall be allotted, tie symbol specified against that party in column 3 thereo ·, and no other
symbol.
(3)- Any other candidate shall choos<, and shall be
allotted, one of the free symbols specified Lil clause (b) of
paragraph (1) and no other symbol.
( 4) If two or more candidates have indicated their
preference for the same free symbol, the Returning Officer
shall decide by lot to which of them the symbol shall be
allotted.
(5) For the purposes of these directic•ns, a candidate
shall be deemed to be sponsored by a political party
if, and only if, a notice in writing to that effect has been
delivered not later than 3 p.m. on the fa st date for the
withdrawal of candidates
to the retuning officer of
A
B
c
D
E
G
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
s. s. P. v. ELECTION COMMISSION (HidayoJullah, 1.)
649
the constituency by a person who is authorised by the
said party to send such notices and whose name and
specimen signature have been communicated in advance
to the said returning officer and to the Chief Electoral
Officer of the State."
The table which follows those conditions shows the 'Hut' as the
reserved symbol of the Praja Socialist Party in Bihar, Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mysore and Orissa and the 'Tree'
as the reserved symbol of the Samyukta Socialist Party in Bihar,
Kerala and Manipur.
It is said that by changing rule 5(1) and dropping the last 8
words from that . rule the Election Commission has denied to
itself the power to amend the list of symbols. This is not correct. The restrictions which the Election Commission has framed
for the use of the symbols are quite clear and pennit the issuance
of fresh notifications if symbols are required to be changed. The
restrictions when analysed are those. Before a candidate
can
choose a symbol it must be free. Before a reserved symbol can
be chosen the candidate must be accredited to the party whose
symbol it is and it must be shown by the Election Commission in
its notification as the symbol of that party. Obviously, therefore,
if circumstances change the notification must follow suit. Parties
may come into existence and parties may go out of existence;
parties may-unite or parties may separate. This will require·amendment of the notification. Just as the Election Commission allotted the 'Hut' as a symbol by a change of notification to the Samyukta
Socialfst Party, it can allot it to another party if circumstances made
that course obligatory and just. The Election Commission is
required to give effect to restrictions of its own making but that
does not restrict its own powers so long as what it does is in consonance with facts and the action is dictated by them. It must
not of course, favour one party so as to harm another. It must
only change a symbol when the circumstances justify such
a
change.
l'here is no doubt that for a time the Praja Socialist Party
and the Socialist Party did genuinely unite to form the Samyukta
Socialist Party and that the Secretaries of the two Parties wrote
to the Election Commission that the symbol 'Hut' shoiilil be
allotted to the united Party. The Election Commission rer-ognised the new party and also accepted the request. It is equally
clear that on January 31, 1963 the Samyukta Socialist Party brokeup at its very first meeting and the Praja Socialist Party, which
reorganised itself claimed its original symbol. The Election Commission did not decide whether the merger was final or provisional.
But after enquiry, found it established that the original leaders of
the Praja Socialist Party together with the bulk of the members
650
SUPREME COURT lll!PORTS
(1967] I S .C.R •
of the Party had, in fact, left the united Party. The"Election Commission ascertained the relative strengths of the Praja Socialist
Party and the Samyukta Socialist Party before and after the breakup and came to the conclusion that the Parties had reverted to
their original state. The Election Commission, therefore, restored
the symbol of 'Hut' to the Praja Socialist Party as its original party·
symbol and the symbol of 'Tree' to the Samyukta Socialist Part)
as representing the old Socialist Party leaving it open to the Samyukta Socialist Party to choose any other free s)'mbol if it
liked.
The question is whether in doing so the Election Commission acted capriciously
or without jurisdiction. We think the
facts support the action of the Election Commission and also
that it was within its jurisdiction. If the Praja Socialist Party,
after the break-up, was a new party or had a new lead~hip then
the symbol, which originally belonged to the defunct Praja Socialist Party, could not be claimed by the new Praja Socialist Party
as a matter of right, but if it was the same party with the same leaders which contested the earlier elections with the symbol of 'Hut'
there was complete justification in restoring the party to its original position so that the advantage of a symbOI identified with
a party should not be lost to it. Although we arc clear that a
change of symbol by the Election Commission arbitrarily would
be outside its competency, because the Rules framed by the
Central Government and supplemented
by the
Election Commission in its Notification do not contemplate a discretion to the
Election Commission, there is some jurisdiction in the Election
Commission to regulate or restrict the choice of symbols in circumstances such as this. Although no· power is given to the Election Commission to in;lpose its own wishes on parties or candidates,
it can, in a suitable case, restore the lost advantage to a party
before the symbol can be said to be finally assigned to another
party. Can we, therefore, say, in this case, that the Election Commission imposed its will arbitrarily or capriciously on the Samyukta
Socialist Party when it took away the symbol of 'Hut' from it 1
On a careful consideration of the correspondence between the
Election Commission on the one hand, and the Praja Socialist
Party on the other, and taking into consideration all available
facts, we are satisfied that the action of the Election Commission
was within its jurisdiction when it recognised the choice of the
symbol by the Praja Socialist Party and cannot be described as
an interference with the choice of the Samyukta Socialist Party.
To begin with the action is bona fide, for no malice or any
other improper motive has even been suggested. The Sarnyukta
Socialist Party only contends
that the Election
Commission
was not competent to cancel the symbol chosen by the Samyukta
A
B
c
D
E
r
G
H
s. s. P. v. ELECTION COMMISSION (Hidayatullah, I.)
651
A
Socialist Party; It submits that unlike the earlier rule, the new
rule 5(1) only enables the Election Commission to place restrictions on the choice of the candidate or the party but the choice
once made by the candidate or the party is final and the Election Commission has no further say in the matter. It also submits that the facts do not justify the assumption of the Election
B
Commission that the parties had once again reverted to the premerger state. These arguments require careful consideration
because the importance of the symbols to our system of elections
needs no exaggeration. Symbols are its very soul and without
them the exercise of franchise by the majority of our citizens would
be impossible. No doubt elections are fought on party lines
C
but even if there is a plebiscite between parties, the symbols play
a key role by identifying the parties. Slogans, placards, appeals
all invoke the symbols and not the candidates. In fact, the voters
are asked to vote for this symbol or that symbol. The Election
Commission can allot symbols as desired by parties and candidates
but, in a case such as this, it has to decide who is to have which
symbol without, of course, putting a hurdle in the way of any
D
party.
.
E
F
G
H
But what we have said has a double edge on it. If the merger
of Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist Party was unsuccessful
and before any significant time had passed the Praja Socialist
Party had decided to separate, and if all the leaders of the party
and almost all its original members decided to quit the amalgamated party, the benefit. of its symbol could not be left to the Socialist Party which, in the events that have happened, is bearing
the name of the unified party. It is no longer the unified party
it was when the name was assumed. Parties have a sentimental
attachment for their symbols. The 'Hut' was the symbol of the
Praja Socialist Party and the amalgamated party chose the 'Hut'
rather than the 'Tree' because of the greater success of the Praja
Socialist Party at the polls. If disagreement led to a. quick break
up before the new party or its symbol could become properly
grounded, the reversion .to the original position was not only logical but also eminently just. It is clear, therefore, that the Election Commission proceeded along the right lines and reached
the right conclusion both legally and in the light of the facts ascertained by it from impartial sources. We see no force in the
appeal and it will be dismissed but we make no order as to costs.
Writ Petition 193 of 1966 was heard alongwith Civil Appeal
No. 1653 of 1966. As no separate contentions were raised in
the petition we have passed a common judgment to cover the
petition also. The constitutional point was not pressed at the
hearing. The petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no
order about costs.
·
G.C.
Appeal and writ petition dismissed.