# ALL PARTY HILL LEADERS' CONFERENCE, SHILLONG v. CAPTAIN M.A. SANGMA & ORS - **Citation:** [1978] 1 S.C.R. 393 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1977-09-12 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 945 of 1977 - **Bench:** P. K. Goswami, A. C. Gupta, S. lv!URTAZA FAZAL ALI - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/all-party-hill-leaders-conference-shillong-v-captain-m-a-sangma-ors-7285 - **Pages:** 25 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Articles 136(1), 324 and 327-Election Cun11nissioa, whether a Tribunal-Representation of People Act, 1951-Sec. 169-Tlze Conduct of Elections Rules 1961-Rules 5 and 10-Election Sy1nbol (Rl'Sen:ation and Allotment)Order 1968-Dissolurion of a political party-Whether test of niajori1y applicable. A B All Party Hill Leaders' Conference was constituted as a political party in the composite State of Assam in 1960. Jn 1962, APHLC contested General ElecC tions and secured 11 out of 15 seats in the Assan1 Legislative Assembly reserved for the autonomous Hill districts of the State of Assam and returned one mem· ber to the Lok Sabha. In 1967 it contested the General Elections and secured 9 seats in the· Legislative Assembly and returned one member to the Lok Sabha. In 1970, an autonon1ous State of 1\.!eghalaya within the State of Assam \Vas constituted under s. 3 of the Assam Reorganisation Act, 1969 and the APHLC secured 34 seats in the Legislative Assen1bly. In 1972, State of 1feghalaya can1e into being. Jn the same year APHLC D contested the General Elections and secured 32 seats in the Meghalaya Legisla· tive Assembly out of 60 and returned 2 members to the Lok Sabha and 1 member to the Rajya Sabha. In August 1976, (icneral Conference of APHLC discussed the question of n1erger with the Indian National Congress and decided that there ~hould be no merger but friendly relations should be strengthened. In Noven1· ber 1976, in a meeting of the Central Olftce bearers Comn1ittce which is the executive body of the APHLC capt. Sangma v.·ho was the President of APHLC as well as the Chief Minister of Meghalaya made an announcen1ent that the Congress High Comn1and had rejected the resolution of friendly relations and E that it had insisted that the APHLC should n1erge \Vith the Indian National Congress. It v.·as, therefore. decided to call a meeting of the General Conference in November, 1976 ';to reviev.r the implementation o:f the political re<;olu· tion of the Conference held at Shillong on 19th and 20th August, 1976." The agenda, however, did not specifically mention about the discussion of the issue of merger. There was a storm of protest from several quarters. On 4-11·1976, the F ·Executive Committee of the Khasi l-Jills District expressed grave concern about the n1atter and requested President Sangma to postpone the Conference. On 8·11-1976, several leaders from Garo Hills including the then Chief Executive 1\-tember of the District Council and the then Chairman of the Garo Hills District Conference presented a Memorandun1 to Capt. Sangma requesting postponement of the Conference so that the lenders and the \liOrkers of the party have enough time ·to consider the matter. On 10th and 11th November, 1976 the Executive Committee Khasi Hills District decided not to participate in the Conference. The Committee further appealed to the President of the Party for G postponement of the holding of the proposed Conference to enable the leader· ship to take the rank and file of the party and the pcop1e into confidence. On 14th November, 1976, the Shillong Unit of the Patty by a resolution requested Capt. Sangma for giving the leai:lcrs nnd members of the party time and oppor· tunity to consider all aspects of the nlcrgcr issue. Notwithstanding the opposition, the Conference was held on 16-11·1976 whic~ was at~ended by 8~ delegates out. of 121 and a resolution was passed unan1m~usly in favour of the merger with the Congress. The n1eeting authorisH ed President Sangma to form a committee consisting of 5 n1embers to v.·ork out the modalities, technicalities and details of the tnero-er with the Indian National Congress in consultation \Vi th the Congre:;,s High~ Command. Although the A B c D E F G H 394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] l s.c.R. resolution recalled the part played by the people in constituting a common political platform the appeal by a vocal section of the party to go back -to the people to ascertain their wish as to' ## Text _Characters 0–39,819 of 80,786. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39819 for what follows._ '· • 393 ALL PARTY HILL LEADERS' CONFERENCE, SHILLONG v. CAPTAIN M.A. SANGMA & ORS. September 12, 1977 [P. K. GOSWAMI, A. C. GUPTA AND S. lv!URTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J Constitution of India, Articles 136(1), 324 and 327-Election Cun11nissioa, whether a Tribunal-Representation of People Act, 1951-Sec. 169-Tlze Conduct of Elections Rules 1961-Rules 5 and 10-Election Sy1nbol (Rl'Sen:ation and Allotment)Order 1968-Dissolurion of a political party-Whether test of niajori1y applicable. A B All Party Hill Leaders' Conference was constituted as a political party in the composite State of Assam in 1960. Jn 1962, APHLC contested General ElecC tions and secured 11 out of 15 seats in the Assan1 Legislative Assembly reserved for the autonomous Hill districts of the State of Assam and returned one mem· ber to the Lok Sabha. In 1967 it contested the General Elections and secured 9 seats in the· Legislative Assembly and returned one member to the Lok Sabha. In 1970, an autonon1ous State of 1\.!eghalaya within the State of Assam \Vas constituted under s. 3 of the Assam Reorganisation Act, 1969 and the APHLC secured 34 seats in the Legislative Assen1bly. In 1972, State of 1feghalaya can1e into being. Jn the same year APHLC D contested the General Elections and secured 32 seats in the Meghalaya Legisla· tive Assembly out of 60 and returned 2 members to the Lok Sabha and 1 member to the Rajya Sabha. In August 1976, (icneral Conference of APHLC discussed the question of n1erger with the Indian National Congress and decided that there ~hould be no merger but friendly relations should be strengthened. In Noven1· ber 1976, in a meeting of the Central Olftce bearers Comn1ittce which is the executive body of the APHLC capt. Sangma v.·ho was the President of APHLC as well as the Chief Minister of Meghalaya made an announcen1ent that the Congress High Comn1and had rejected the resolution of friendly relations and E that it had insisted that the APHLC should n1erge \Vith the Indian National Congress. It v.·as, therefore. decided to call a meeting of the General Conference in November, 1976 ';to reviev.r the implementation o:f the political re<;olu· tion of the Conference held at Shillong on 19th and 20th August, 1976." The agenda, however, did not specifically mention about the discussion of the issue of merger. There was a storm of protest from several quarters. On 4-11·1976, the F ·Executive Committee of the Khasi l-Jills District expressed grave concern about the n1atter and requested President Sangma to postpone the Conference. On 8·11-1976, several leaders from Garo Hills including the then Chief Executive 1\-tember of the District Council and the then Chairman of the Garo Hills District Conference presented a Memorandun1 to Capt. Sangma requesting postponement of the Conference so that the lenders and the \liOrkers of the party have enough time ·to consider the matter. On 10th and 11th November, 1976 the Executive Committee Khasi Hills District decided not to participate in the Conference. The Committee further appealed to the President of the Party for G postponement of the holding of the proposed Conference to enable the leader· ship to take the rank and file of the party and the pcop1e into confidence. On 14th November, 1976, the Shillong Unit of the Patty by a resolution requested Capt. Sangma for giving the leai:lcrs nnd members of the party time and oppor· tunity to consider all aspects of the nlcrgcr issue. Notwithstanding the opposition, the Conference was held on 16-11·1976 whic~ was at~ended by 8~ delegates out. of 121 and a resolution was passed unan1m~usly in favour of the merger with the Congress. The n1eeting authorisH ed President Sangma to form a committee consisting of 5 n1embers to v.·ork out the modalities, technicalities and details of the tnero-er with the Indian National Congress in consultation \Vi th the Congre:;,s High~ Command. Although the A B c D E F G H 394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] l s.c.R. resolution recalled the part played by the people in constituting a common political platform the appeal by a vocal section of the party to go back -to the people to ascertain their wish as to' obliteration of the platform constituted by them fell on deaf ears. The Conference of 81 members unmandatcd for the purpose decided for the people and the President acquired from that small body absolute power to nominate his own Committee and to do all that v:as necessary in order to announce the merger of the party. Immedia1ii:ly after passing of the resolution 4 APHLC leaders who were Cabinet Ministers, tendered their resignation. Thereafter, Mr. Nongtdu describing himself as Joint Secretary of the erst- \Vhile APHLC informed the Election Commission that the APHLC had merged with the Indian National Congress and that the Election Commission should wilhdra\v the election symbol ''flower" reserved for the erstwhile APHLC. As against that, Mr. Pugh informed the Commission that some APHLC leaders including Capt. Sangma had joined the Indian National Congress and that the leader who had left the party had no authority to decide dissolution of the party or to approach the authorities on the question of recognition or derecognition; that the party was still in existence and there \Vas no provision whatever for a. person or a group of persons to dissolve the party of the people. The Commission invited comments from the parties and after hearing then1 delivered its order holding that APHLC had ceased to exist and that, therefore, the name of that party and tho symbol 'flower' reserved for it should be deleted from the list of recognised State parties. The Election Commission ordered that the symbol 'flower' would remain frozen and that it should not be included as a free symbol. The appellant filed a Special Leave petition in this Court against the order of the Election Commission which was granted. At the hearing the respondent raised the preliminary objection as to the -maintainability of the appeal by Special Leave on the ground that the Election Commission is not a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 136 of the Constitution. The appellant contended that 81 delegates 'ivithout any mandate from the members of a party cannot dissolve a party. Allowing the appeal, HELD : (I) This Court has laid dov,rn several tests to determine whether a particular body or authority is a Tribunal within the ambit of Art. 136. The tests are not exhaustive in all cases. It is, however, absolutely necessary that the. authority in order to come within the ambit of 1\.rt. 136(1) as Tribunal must be constituted by ,the State1 and invested with some function of judicial power of the State. This test is an unfailing one while some of the other tests may or may not be present at the same time. [404 F-H] Sadiq Ali & Anr. etc. v. Election Cotnmission of India and Others etc. 1973 (2) SCR 318; Ran1ashankar Kaushik and Another v. Election Cotnmission of India and Another 1974 (2) SCR 265; Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi v. Employt1es of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi etc. 1950 (1) SCR 459; Shell Co111pany of Australia v. Federal Comn1fasioner of Taxation 1931 AC 275; Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghura; Singh and ()thcrs 1955 (1) SC:R 267; J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Kanpur v. The Iron and Steel Mazdoar Union, Kanpur 1955 (2) Sen. 1315; Mis. Harinngar Sugar Mills Ltd. Y. Shyan1 Sundar Jhunjhunwala and Others, 1962 l2) SCR 339; Jaswant Suf!ar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Laksh1nicf1and and Qt hers, 1963 Suppl. ( 1) SCR 242; The Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and Another v. The Hind Cycles Ltd., Bon1bay 1963 Suppl. (1) SCR 625, referred to. A.uoociated Cen1ent Con1panies Ltd. v. P. N. Shanna and Anr. 1965 (2) SCR 366. followed. (2) The Election Commission is a creature of the Constitution. Under Article 324, the superintendence, direction and control and the preparation of the electoral roll for and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and all elections to the offices of the President and the Vice President shall be vested in the Electiun Comntission. The Chief Election Commissioner cannot be removed fron1 his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court. The Chief Election Com· • • APHLC V. M. A. SANGMA 395 missioner is a high dignitary whose tnde,peudeni.:e, impartiality and fair rnindedA ness are intended to be guaranteed by the Constitution. for the purpose ot holding elections .11Iocation of symbol will find a prime place in a i;ountry where illiteracy is still very high. It has been found from experience that symbol as a device for casting votes in favour of a candidate of one·s choice has proved as invaluable aid. [406 G, 407 A-D, El (3) Article 327 empowers the Parliament to make 'provisions with respect to aU matters relating to or in connection with the elections. The Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 does not provide for any provisions with regard ,to symbol. However, under s. 169( I) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, the Central Government 1s empowered to make rules after consulting the Commission for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Sub-section (2) of s. 169 provides that ln particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power u/s. 169( 1) such rules nlight provide for the matters specified from (a) to ( 1). Clause ( c) provides for the manner in which votes are to be given both generally and in the case of illiterate voters or voters under physical disadvantage. The last clause is a residuary clause ·with regard to any other matter that may be required to be prescribed by the Act. The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. \vhich have been framed in exercise of the power conferred by s. 169· of the Act prcvides for various matters. Rules 5 and 10(4)(5)(6) deal \Vith matters relating to symbol. In exercise of the power vested in the Commission under Articie 324 and rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and all other powers enabling it in that behalf the Election Commission, made the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. It is not necessary to deal with the question whether the symbols order made by the Commission is a piece of legislative activity. It is enough to hold, which the Court held, lb.at the Commission is empowered on its own right under Article 324 of the Constitution and also under rules 5 and 10 of the Rules to make directions in general in widest terms necessary and also in specific cases in order to facilitate a free and fair election with promptitude. It was held in Sadiq Ali's case that the symbol order was ma.de by the Election Commission in exercise of powers which fto\v from Article 324 as well as rules 5 and 10. The Court, therefore, held that the Election Commission is a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 136. [407 G-H. 408 A-E, G-Hl (4) The 81 members of the Conference had decided that APHLC should dissolve. 40 members had opposed the move and stayed away from the Conference. This led to the dispute as to whether nohvithstanding the majority resolution in the Conference the, APHLC could still continue as a recognised political party in the State of Meghalaya for the purpose of allotment of the reserved symbol. There is thus lis between the two groups of the Conference. The Commission is the specified and exclusive adjudicating authority of this Us. The Commission is created by the Constitution and the power to adjudicate the dispute flows from Article 324 as \vell as from rule 5 and is thus conferred under the law as a fraction of judicial power of the State. The Con1mission has pre~cribed its own procedure in the symbol order, namely, to give a hearing to the parties when there is a dispute \Vith regard to recognition or regarding choice of symbols. The power to decide the dispute in question is a part of the State·s judicial power and that power is conferred on the Election Commission by Art. 324 of the Constitution as also by rule 5 of the Rules. The principal and nonf ailing test which must be present in order to determine whether a body or authority is a Tribunal within the ambit of Art. 136(1) is fulfilled in this case. The question whether the primary function of the Election Commission is at/hole. It is difficult to appreci- - • APHLC v. M. A. SANGMA (Goswami, .I.) 397 Assam Legislative Assembly reserved for the Autonomous Hill Districts of the State of Assam and returned one member to the Lok Sabha. In 196 7 it contested the general elections and secured 9 seats in the LegisJative Assembly and returned one member to the Lok Sabha. In 1970 the autonomous State 'of Meghalaya within the State of Assam was constituted under section 3 of the Assam Reorganisation Act, 1969, and the APHLC secured 34 scats in the Legislative Assembly. In 1972 the State of Meghalaya came into being as the 21st State of the Indian Union under section 5 of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. In the same year the APHLC contested the general elections and secured 32 seats in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly out of 60 and returned two members to the Lok Sabha and one member to the Rajya Sabha. A B It is claimed by the appellant that the APHLC is a. vibrant and C fully functioning political party. It has a high reputation for its national and patriotic outlook and its adherence to non-violence, constitutionalism, communal harmony and the spirit of moderation. APHLC has been inftuenfal not only in securing stability in the area in which it operates but also in bringing the various tribes of the North East into the national stream. In the implementation of national programmes APHLC has co-operated with the Indian D National Congress but APHLC has always remained essentially a state party. The essence of APHLC, says the appellant, is the autonomy and security of the small hill tribes of the North East whose party it is and who do not wish to lose their identity as such. The appellant further asserts that it is in the national interest no less than the 111terest of these smal] hill tribes that they should possess a sense of unity and organisation within the APHLC E which in turn maintains the best of relations with the Indian National Congress which is a national party. The a;ipellant also claims that the APHLC functions at several levels, namely, Central, District, Circle and Village levels. At the Central level it has affiliated to it several other parties, these being the Garo National Council, the Eastern India Tribal Union, the Khasi F Jaintia Conference and the Jaintia Durbar. There is the Central Office Bearers Committee comprising all the Central Office Bearers. namely. President, several Vice-Presidents, General Secretary, Joint Secretaries and Treasurer. Furthermore, there are branches at the District level each district having its own office bearers. executive committee and other committees.~ Thereafter, there arc Circles within the area of the district which correspond to M.L.A. constituencies. G Further below and nearest to the grass roots there arc the vmage units comprising a village or a group of villages. There are about 300 village units in the State. each unit having 50 to 200 members of APHLC. according to the size of the village unit. Originally the representatives of the District Congress Committees were also included in the APHLC out some time in 1961 the District Congress Committees left the APHLC. H It is also claimed that 'the APHLC as a political party has tlwusands and thousands of members in the State of Meghalaya"'. As a counter to A B c D E E 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] l S.C.R. this assertion, it is stated by the respondents that "as per well-established convention of the erstwhile APHLC, the general Conference of ihe party was the supreme authority to discuss and to decide on any issue before it". It is pointed out by the appellant that the presence of a large membership has not been even denied by the respondents. It is clear that the main object of the APHLC was to achieve statehood in the hill areas within the framework of the Constitution of India and to work out its own destiny maintaining its identity according to their own genius parting company with Assam. This was achieved finally on January 21, 1972, when the ruling party in the Central Government was the Indian National Congress. The APHLC election manifesto of 1972 while disclosing its programme and policy for the new State of Meghalaya announced as follows :- "The APHLC, with the unreserved support of the people has been instrumental in bringing about the creation of the Hill State, and it is confident that with the continued support and co-operation of the people, the Party will, through its programme, succeed in ushering in for the people of Meghalaya an era of hope, of justice and of equality of opportunity".(') We have already shown above how the APHLC came out successful in the elections. It appears that some time thereafter the question of merger of the APHLC with the Congress occupied the minds of the leaders. The 24th Session of the APHLC held at Shillong on June 19 and 20, 1973, considered "the future of the party and the question of merger with Congress" and "unanimously decided to maintain its identity and continue to serve the people as a party.".('). The issue of merger of the APHLC with the Congress was, however, not dead and it again came up for consideration in the General Conference of the APHLC on August 19 and 20, 1976, with notice of two months issued in June 1976. It was again, in line with the previous policy, decided in that Conference "that friendly relations with the Indian National Congress should be maintained and strengthened". But no merger. On November I, 1976, in a meeting of the Central Office Bearers Committee. which is the executive body of the APHLC, Captain Sangma, who was President of the APHLC as well as Chief Minister of Meghalaya, made an announcement that "the Congress High ComG mand had rejected the Resolution of friendly relations passed at the APHLC Conference on the 19th and 20th August, 1976 and had insisted that APHLC should merge with the Indian National Congress". Although! there is some controversy about the correctness of the minutes of November I, 1976, it appears therefrom that a General Conference of the APHLC was announced to be held at Mendipathar. Garo Hills District, on November 16, 1976, "to rcvi•ow the implcmenH tation of the political resolution of the Conference held at Shillong on ( 1) Sec A PH LC Souvc'lir 1960-1974 page 19. (2) SeeAPHLC Souvenir 196D-J974page17. -- - • ""· - APHLC v. M. A. SANGMA (Goswami, J.) 399 the 19th and 20th August, 1976". The notice for this meeting was given with the agenda in the above quoted terms on November 3, 1976, and all delegates were requested to attend the Conference on November' 16, 1976. It is rather intriguing that the agenda rn the notice, with such a short interval, did not even specifically mention about discussion of the issue of "merger with the INC" even to facilitate the news of this move to trickle far and wide into larger areas of the populace. Even so there was a storm of protests from several quarters. On November 4, 1976, the Executive Committee of the Khasi Hills Disttict APHLC expressed grave concern about the matter and requested the President, Captain Sangma, to postpone the Conference. On November 8, 1976, several leaders from Garo Hills, including the then Chief Executive Member of the District Council and the then Chairman of the Garo Hills District Council, presented a memorandum to Captain Sangma requesting postponement of the Conference "so that the leaders and the workers of the party have time enough to consider the matter''. On November 10 and 11, 1976, the Executive Committee of the Khasi Hills District decided not to participate in the Conference of 16th November, 1976. The Committee further appealed to the President of the party for postponement of the holding of the proposed Conference "to enable the leadership to take the rank and file of the party and the people into confidence on the issues involved and through calm and objective discussions, evolve a consensus decision to the satisfaction of all concerned in keeping with the tradition and genius of the hill people". On November 14, 1976, two days prior to the Conference, the Shillong unit of the APHLC by a resolution requested Captain Sangma for giving the leaders and members of the party time and opportunity to consider all aspects of the merger issue "by mutual consultation at all levels, so that a consensus may be arrived at and thus maintain the unitv of the party and the people". · Notwithstanding the opposition, it went unheeded and the Conference was held on November 16, 1976, at Mendipathar which was qttcnded by 81 delegates out of 121 and a resolution was passed unanimously in favour of merger with the Congress. The resolution : "recalls with fond memory the circumstances which actuated the people of the autonomous districts of the then composite State of Assam to constitute a common political platform of their own, styled as the All Party Hill Leaders' Conference with a view to solving certain issues vitally affecting their welfare and interests. • * * * This meeting also recalls in this context that during the last few years, the APHLC's relationship with the Indian National Congress, including the question of merger has often been discussed in different forums, and formally in the 24th session of the party on the 19th and 20th June, 1973 at Shillong. The 26th session of the party held on the 19th and 20th August, 1976 reiterated its firm resolve to strengA B c D T E F G Ii H 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1978] J S.C.R. A then, through mutually agreed upon steps, the said relationship with the Indian National Congress ....... . Taking into full account the political changes which have taken place in the meantime in the State and the country it is realised that the earlier resolutions have virtually become irrelevant and it is high time now to take concrete steps. B This meeting therefore r,egrets that there are nevertheless some of our people who do not want to face facts and consequently fail to appreciate the importance of the changed situation which will go against the interests of the State and the people to allow indecision to continue further. c D E F G H Now, therefore, in view of the constant stand of the party to strengthen the good relationship ;~ith the Indian National Congress, and in view of the objective realities of the political situation obtaining in the country, and having noted the con·· scnsus of the people through their representatives and our following the plans and programmes of the Indian National Congress which has been consistently taking special care to promote the welfare and interests of the Scheduled Tribes as provided in the Constitution and having been convinced. after a most careful cons!deration, that there is no better way to give practical shape to the long standing convictions of the Party to come closer to the Prime Minister and her party than by merging with the Indian National Congress thereby providing us with an opportunity to take full advantage of the national forum together with other hill people of the northeastern region who have similar problems as we, and taking all these factors into serious and realistic consideration, this meeting hereby unanimously resolves that the APHLC be merged with the Indian National Congress in response to rhc desire of the Prime Minister, Shrimati Indira Gandhi, and her party for the larger and fuller interests of the people of Mcghalaya in particular and of the country in general." The meeting further authorised the President, Captain Sangma, "to form a committee consisting of 5 members to work out the modalities, technicalities and details of the merger with the Indian National Congress in consultation with the Congress H;gh Command" and also authorised him "to announce the formal merger of the APHLC with the Indian National Congress and the consequent dissolution of the APHLC as a political party or association in the State of Meghalaya". The meeting also "appeal ( ed) to the people of Mcghalaya in particular to the leaders and supporters of the APHLC, to extend their full support to the resolution". It is an irony that although the meeting recalled the part played by "Lhe people~' in constituting '~a con1n1on political platform" styled as the APHLC, the appeal by a vocal section of the party to go back to "the people" to clearly ascertain their wish as to obliteration of the "platform" constituted by them fell on deaf cars. .,Jo • • APHLC v. M. A. SANGMA (Goswami, !.) 401 The Conference of 81 members, unmandated for the purpose, A decided for the people and the President acquired from that small body absolute power to nominate his own committee and to do all that was necessary in order to announce the merger of the party with the INC. The saving grace of the resolution was "the appeal to the people of Meghalaya" to extend this their support to the resolution. The resolution had immediate repercussions. The very next day, B November 17, 1976, four APHLC leaders, namely, Messrs. D. D. Pugh (General Secretary of APHLC), P. R. Kyndiah,. S. D. D. Nichols Roy and B. B. Lyngdoh issued the following Press statement :- "We deeply regret the decision taken by a section ilf APHLC leaders meeting at Mendipathar to leave the party and join the Congress despite the suggestion to postpone the meeting with a view to enable the leadership time to consult the rank and file of the party and to take the people into confidence. By this hasty decision Shd W. A. Sangma and his followers have shown their complete disregard of the will of the people on whose mandate the APHLC Government was formed. The APHLC will continue to serve the best interests of the people and make its own distinctive contribution to the progress of the State and the country as a whole. In this connection, a Conference of the APHLC is being convened by the General Secretary on the 7th December, 1976" . • • • The following day, November 18, 1976, Messrs. B. B. Lyngdoh, S. D. D. Nichols Roy, P. R. Kyndiah and D. D. Pugh, who were Ministers in the Government of Meghalaya, resigned from the Cabinet and addressed a letter to the Chief Minister (Captain Sangma) as follows:- c D E "In view of the fact that you and the other three Cabinet colleagues have decided to leave the APHLC which had F formed the present Government and that you have done so without a mandate of the people we feel it has become morally incumbent upon us to resign. We do, therefore, hereby submit our resignation from the Cabinet with immediate effect". Even then President Captain Sangma did not cry halt. On November G 20, 1976, Captain Sangma made an announcement as follows :- "Having been duly authorised by resolution of the 27th session of the All Party Leaders' Conference held on 16th November, 1976 at Mendipathar, Garo Hills, Meghalaya, in pursuance of the decision of the Central Committ·ee held on the !st November, 76 at Shillong I, Capt. W. A. Sangma, H President of the All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, after finalising the modalities of the merger as directed by the aforesaid resolution, hereby announce the merger of the All Party 2-930SCI/77 A B c D E F G H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] l S.C.R. Hill Leaders' Conference with the Indian National Congress with effect from the afternoon of the 20th November, 1976. The All Party Hill Leaders' Conference stands dissolved as a Political Party or Association in the State of Meghalaya with effect from the afternoon of the aforesaid date, and its assets including bank balance and securities as also liabilities stand merged with the Indian National Congress". Without further loss of time, the next move began. By a letter dated November 28, 1976, Shri 0. L. Nongtdu, describing himself as. "Joint Secretary of the erstwhile APHLC" informed the Elecl!on Commission (hereinafter to be described as the Commission) that the· APHLC had merged with the Indian National Congress (hereinafter to be referred to as the INC) and consequently it stood dissolved. He requested the Commission in that letter to "withdraw the election symbol (Flower) reserved for the erstwhile APHLC". He enclosed with that letter several documents containing the resolutions of the party. As against that move, by a letter dated November 30, 1976, Shri D. D. Pugh informed the Commission that some APHLC leaders including Captain Sangma had joined the INC and thus defected from the APHLC, that the leaders who had left the party had no authority to decide dissolution of the party or to approach the authorities on the question of recognition or derecognition, that the party was still in existence and there was no provision whatever for a person or a group of persons to dissolve this party of the people. On December 9, 197 6, the Commission forwarded to Shri D. D. Pugh, General Secretary, APHLC, copies of letters together with their enclosures received from Shri 0. L. Nongtdu, Joint Secretary, APHLC, and invited comments thereon before 31st December, 1976 "so as to enable the Commission to take further necessary action in the matter". Shri D. D. Pugh forwarded his commenb; to the Commission on December 24, 1976, concluding his representation as follows :- "The party having been recognised as a political party with the reserved symbol 'Flower' under the provisions of the Order, no occasion has arisen for not continuing the said symbol "Flower" to the party which has admittedly 14 members in the State Legislature, 16 members in the District councils and thousands and thousands of members in the State of Meghalaya". The Commission heard the parties on January 29, 1977, on which date Shri B. B. Lyngodh filed an affidavit before the Commission. The Commission after hearing the parties passed its order on Febrnar~ I. 1977, holding thaf- "the APHLC, a recognised State party in Meghalaya under the Election Symbols Order has ceased to exist and that therefore the name of that party .and the symbol "Flower" reserved for it should be deleted from the list of recognised ;rl: • ! J " APHLC v. M. A. SANGMA (Goswami, J.) 403 State parties in the Election Commission Notification No. S.0. 61 (E) dated 31 January 1975 forthwith. The symbol ''£lower" shall remain frozen with immediate effect. I also direct that in order to avoid confusion the said symbol should not be included as a free symbol in respect of the States of Meghalaya and Assam". It is against the above order of the Commission that the appellant has brought this appeal by special leave. At the outset a preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of respondents l and 2 (hereinafter to be described as the respondents) to the maintainability of this appeal by special leave nnder Article 136 of the Constitution. The Commission being the 3rd respondent bas not entered appearance. It is submitted by Mr. Rao appearing on behalf of the respondents that the Election Commission is not a tribunal within the ambit of Article 136 (1) of the Constitution. This question centering round the Election Commission has been raised before this Court for the first time in this appeal. Although in A B c two earlier decisions of this Court appeals were lodged in this Court by special leave from the decisions of the Election Commission, no objecD tion with regard to the maintainability under Art. 136 was raised (See Sadiq Ali and Anr. etc. v. Election Commission of India and Others etc.(') and Ramashankar Kaushik 'and Another v. Ele.ction Commission of India and Another(2 ). This would, however, not prevent the respondents from raising this question before ns. We will, therefore, examine the matter first. If the answer is against the appellant, nothing E further will arise for decision. The earliest decision of this Court as to the ambit of Article 136(1) with reference to the order of a tribunal came up for consideration in the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., - Delhi, etc.('). The question whether an Industrial Tribunal constitut- • - ed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was a tribunal within the scope of Article 136 was raised in that case. By majority the ConstituF tion Bench of this Court held that the Industrial Tribunal was a tribunal for the purpose of Article 136. Having regard to the scheme of Article 136, this Court was not prepared to place a narrow interpretation on the amplitude of Article 136. This Court observed at pagr. 476/478 of the Report as follows :- "As pointed out in picturesque language by Lord Sankey L. C. in Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation('), there are tribunals with many of the trappings of a Court which, nevertheless, are not Courts in the strict sense of exercising judicial power. It seems to me that such (I) [1972] 2 S C.R. 318. (2) [1974] 2 S.C.R. 265. (3) [1950] S.C.R.459. (4) [1931] A.C. 275. G Hi A B c D E ll' 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] l S.C.R. tribunals though they are not fullfledged Courts, yet exercise quasi-judicial functions and are within the ambit of the worJ ·tribunal' in Article 136 of the Constitution, * * * • Tribunals which do not derive authority from the so\'ereign power cannot fall within the ambit of Article 136. The condition precedent for bringing a tribunal within the ambit of Article 136 is that it should be constituted by the State. Again a tribunal would be outside the ambit of Article 136 ·if it is not invested with any part of the judicial functions o[ the State but discharges purely administrative or executive duties. Tribunals, however, which are found invested with certain functions of a Court of justice and have some of its trappings also would fall within the ambit of Article 136 ... " Then after four years, B. K. Mukerjea, J. (as he then was) who was one of the dissenting Judges in Bharat Bank (supra), true to judicial discipline, spoke for the unanimous court in the Constitution Bench in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others(') in the following words :- "It is now well settled by the majority decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd. (supra) that the expression "Tribunal" as used in article 136 does not mean the same thing as "Court" but includes, within its ambit, all adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the State and are invested · with judicial as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions". The basic principle laid down in the Bharat Bank (supra) has not been departed from by 1his Court and has been reiterated in ocvcral later decisions [see J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. The Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union Kanpur( 2), Mis Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala and Others('); Jaswam Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand and Others('); The Engineering Mm· door Sabha and Another v. The Hind Cycles Ltd., Bombay('); and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P. N.