# DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM & ANR v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA - **Citation:** [2012] 3 S.C.R. 1084 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2012-04-18 - **Bench:** Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. Chelameswar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/desiya-murpokku-dravida-kazhagam-anr-v-the-election-commission-of-india-28077 - **Pages:** 71 ## Headnote Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, c 1968: Clauses 6A and 68 as inserted by Notification No. 56 dated 1.12.2000 - Political parties - Reservation/allocation of symbols - Criterion for recognition of political parties at 0 State level and National level - Constitutional validity of - Held: Per majority (Chelameswar, J - dissenting): In addition torr. 5 and 10 of Conduct of Election Rules, the powers vested in the Election Commission can be traced to Art. 324 of the Constitution - The Election Commission has set down a bench-mark which is not unreasonable - In order to gain E recognition as a political party, a party has to prove itself and to establish its credibility as a serious player in the political arena of the State - Once it succeeds in doing so, it will become entitled to all the benefits of recognition, including the allotment of a common symbol - A voter has the right to F know the antecedents of the candidates, but such right has to be balanced with the ground realities of conducting a Statewide poll - The Election· Commission has kept the said balance in mind while setting the bench-marks to be achieved by a political party in order to be recognized as a State Party G and become eligible to be given a common election symbol - There is no variance between the views expressed by the Constitution Bench in the PUCL * case and the amendments effected by the Election Commission to the Election Symbols Order, 1968, by its Notification dated 1.12.2000- Nothing new H 1084 DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM v. ELECTION1085 COMMISSION OF INDIA has been brought out on behalf of the petitioners which could A make the Court take a different view from what has been decided earlier - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - rr. 5 and 10 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 324. B The instant writ petitions and special leave petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, by Notification No.O.N.56/2000/ Jud-111 dated 1.12.2000, substituting Clause 6 with 6A(i) C anr:I (ii) and Clause 68 therein. The common grievance in all the petitions was with regard to the amendment which required that in order to be recognized as a State party in the State, a political party should have secured not less than 6% of the total valid votes polled in the State and also returned at least 2 members to the Legislative D Assembly of the State in the last general election. It was contended that the classification of parties into recognized and unrecognized parties on the basis of the seats won during an election and the percentage of votes E polled, was unreasonable and arbitrary, having no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: Per Altamas Kabir, J (for himself and for Surinder Singh Nijjar, J). F 1.1. The Election Commission constituted under Art. 324 of the Constitution of India evolved the procedure for G grant of recognition to political parties. After the First General Election, it fixed 3% of the valid votes polled in the elections as the m.inimum standard for grant of recognition. After the Third General election the minimum standard was raised by the Commission from 3 to 4%. H 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A After the Fourth General Election were held in 1967, the Election Commission decided to streamline the provisions and procedure. Accordingly, by virtue of powers conferred on it by Art. 324 of the Constitution, read with s.29A of the Representation of the People Act, B 1951 and rr. 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and other powers vested in it, the Election Commission of India made and promulgated the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. [para 5-6] [1099-G; 1100-D-H; 1101-8-C] c 1.2. The grounds made on behalf of the writ petitioners regarding the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols Order, 1 ## Text _Characters 0–39,796 of 147,271. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39796 for what follows._ A B [2012] 3 S.C.R. 1084 DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM & ANR. v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (C) No. 532 of 2008) APRIL 18, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, c 1968: Clauses 6A and 68 as inserted by Notification No. 56 dated 1.12.2000 - Political parties - Reservation/allocation of symbols - Criterion for recognition of political parties at 0 State level and National level - Constitutional validity of - Held: Per majority (Chelameswar, J - dissenting): In addition torr. 5 and 10 of Conduct of Election Rules, the powers vested in the Election Commission can be traced to Art. 324 of the Constitution - The Election Commission has set down a bench-mark which is not unreasonable - In order to gain E recognition as a political party, a party has to prove itself and to establish its credibility as a serious player in the political arena of the State - Once it succeeds in doing so, it will become entitled to all the benefits of recognition, including the allotment of a common symbol - A voter has the right to F know the antecedents of the candidates, but such right has to be balanced with the ground realities of conducting a Statewide poll - The Election· Commission has kept the said balance in mind while setting the bench-marks to be achieved by a political party in order to be recognized as a State Party G and become eligible to be given a common election symbol - There is no variance between the views expressed by the Constitution Bench in the PUCL * case and the amendments effected by the Election Commission to the Election Symbols Order, 1968, by its Notification dated 1.12.2000- Nothing new H 1084 DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM v. ELECTION1085 COMMISSION OF INDIA has been brought out on behalf of the petitioners which could A make the Court take a different view from what has been decided earlier - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - rr. 5 and 10 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 324. B The instant writ petitions and special leave petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, by Notification No.O.N.56/2000/ Jud-111 dated 1.12.2000, substituting Clause 6 with 6A(i) C anr:I (ii) and Clause 68 therein. The common grievance in all the petitions was with regard to the amendment which required that in order to be recognized as a State party in the State, a political party should have secured not less than 6% of the total valid votes polled in the State and also returned at least 2 members to the Legislative D Assembly of the State in the last general election. It was contended that the classification of parties into recognized and unrecognized parties on the basis of the seats won during an election and the percentage of votes E polled, was unreasonable and arbitrary, having no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: Per Altamas Kabir, J (for himself and for Surinder Singh Nijjar, J). F 1.1. The Election Commission constituted under Art. 324 of the Constitution of India evolved the procedure for G grant of recognition to political parties. After the First General Election, it fixed 3% of the valid votes polled in the elections as the m.inimum standard for grant of recognition. After the Third General election the minimum standard was raised by the Commission from 3 to 4%. H 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A After the Fourth General Election were held in 1967, the Election Commission decided to streamline the provisions and procedure. Accordingly, by virtue of powers conferred on it by Art. 324 of the Constitution, read with s.29A of the Representation of the People Act, B 1951 and rr. 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and other powers vested in it, the Election Commission of India made and promulgated the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. [para 5-6] [1099-G; 1100-D-H; 1101-8-C] c 1.2. The grounds made on behalf of the writ petitioners regarding the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, and the power of the Election Commission to settle issues relating to claims of splinter groups to be the original party, had fallen for D the decision of this Court in Sadiq Ali's* case, when this Court had occasion to observe that the Election Commission had been clothed with plenary power by rr. 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in the matter of conducting of elections, which included the E power to allot symbols to candidates during elections. The challenge to the vires of the Symbols Order, 1968, was, accordingly, repelled. The view in Sadiq Ali's case has since been followed in the All Party Hill Leaders' Conference case, Roop Lal Sathi's case, Kanhiya Lal Omar's F case and as recently as in Subramanian Swamy's case, where the provisions of Article 324 of the Constitution vesting the superintendence, direction and control of elections, were considered in detail and it was, inter alia, held that in addition to rr. 5 and 10 of the Conduct of G Election Rules, 1961, the powers vested in the Election Commission could be traced to Article 324 of the Constitution. [para 31-32] [1116-8-F] Shri Sadiq Ali & Anr. Vs. Election Commission of India, New Delhi & Ors. 1972 (2) SCR 318 =(1972) 4 SCC 664; All H Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shillong Vs. Captain W.A. DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM v. ELECTION 1087 COMMISSION OF INDIA Sangma & Ors. 1978 (1) SCR 393 = (1977) 4 SCC 161; Roop A Lal Sathi Vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill 1983 (1) SCR 702 = (1982) 3 SCC 487; Kanhiya Lal Omar Vs. R.K. Trivedi & Ors. 1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 = (1985) 4 SCC 628; and Subramanian Swamy Vs. Election Commission of India 2008 (13) SCR 846 = (2008) 14 SCC 318 - relied on. B 1.3. The evolution of the law relating to the criteria for a political party to be recognized as a State Party clearly indicates that the Election Commission, in its wisdom, was of the view that in order to be recognized as a political party, such party should have achieved a certain C bench-mark in State politics. Nothing new has been brought out in the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners which could make the Court take a different view from what has been decided earlier. [para 33] [1116- ~ D 1.4. The Election Commission has set down a benchmark which is not unreasonable. In order to gain recognition as a political party, a party has to prove itself and to establish its credibility as a serious player in the E political arena of the State. Once it succeeds in doing so, it will become entitled to all the benefits of recognition, including the allotment of a common symbol. [para 33] [1117-B-C] 2. A voter has the right to know the antecedents of F the candidates, but such right has to be balanced with the ground realities of con~ucting a State-wide poll. The Election Commission has kept the said balance in mind while setting the bench-marks to be achieved by a political party in order to be recognized as a State Party G and. become eligible to be given a common election symbol. There is no variance between the views expressed by the Constitution Bench in the PUCL** case and the amendments effected by the Election Commission to the Election Symbols Order, 1968, by its H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A Notification dated 1.12.2000. [Para 34] [1117-D-E] ** People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2003 (2) SCR 1136 = (2003) 4 SCC 399; and Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic B Reforms & Anr. 2002 (3) SCR 696 = (2002) 5 SCC 294 - referred to. Ku/dip Nayar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 = (2006) 7 SCC 1; Kharak Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1964 SCR 332 =AIR 1963 SC 1295; Kanhiya C Lal Omar Vs. R.K. Trivedi & Ors. 1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 = (1985) 4 SCC 628; Sakal Paper (P} Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India (1962) 3 SCR 842; Subramanian Swamy Vs. Election Commission of India 2008 (13) SCR 846 = (2008) 14 SCC 318; Rama Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India 1993 (1) SCR o 786 = (1993) 2 sec 438 - cited. James L. Buckley Vs. Francis R. Valeo 424 US 1 (1976); and Texas Vs. Gregory Lee Johnson 491 US 397 (1989) - cited. E Per Chelameswar, J (Dissenting) 1.1. If a principle laid down by this Court is demonstrably inconsistent with the scheme of the Constitution, it becomes the duty of this Court to correct F the wrong principle laid down. It is also the duty of this Court to correct itself as early as possible in the matters of the interpretation of the Constitution, "as perpetuation of a mistake will be harmful to public interest". (para 28] (1132-B] G 1.2. The right to elect members of Lok Sabha or the Legislatie Assemblies flows from the language of Arts. 81 and 170 r/w Arts. 325 and 326 of the Constitution of India. Such a right can be restricted by the appropriate Legislature only on four grounds specified under Art. 326. H As regards the right to get elected I being CHOSEN either DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM v. ELECTION1089 COMMISSION OF INDIA to the Lok Sabha or to the Legislative Assembly of a A State, Arts. 84 and 173 stipulate the requisite qualifications for a person to be either a member of the Lok Sabha or the Legislature of a State. Arts. 102 and 191 prescribe the various contingencies in which a person would become disqualified to be a member of any one B of the Legislative Bodies, such as, holding of a public office or owing allegiance or adherence to a foreign State, etc. Therefore, subject to the fulfilment of the various conditions stipulated in the Constitution or by an appropriate law made in that behalf, every citizen of this c country has a Constitutional right both fo elect and also be elected to any one of the Legislative Bodies created by the Constitution - the "straight conclusion" of the Mohinder Singh Gill's case, "that every Indian has a right to elect and be elected - subject to statutory regulations", 0 which rights can be curtailed only by a law made by the appropriate legislation that too on grounds specified under Art. 326 only. [para 33,34 and 36] (1135-D; 1137-B, C; 1138-A; 1139-A-C-D] Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. v The Chief Election E Commissioner, New Delhi and ors. 1978 (2) SCR 272 = (1978) 1 sec 405 - relied on. N.P.Ponnuswamy v Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, 1952 SCR 218; Jyothi Basu v. Debi Gosa/ F 1982 (3) SCR 318 = (1982) 1 SCC 691 - distinguished. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and anr. v. Union of India and anr. 2003 ( 2) SCR 1136 = (2003) 4 sec 399 - referred to. Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah National Commission to G review the working of the Constitution Report - referred to. 2.1. On 30.7.1957, the Election Commission held a Conference, where 7 well established political parties, then organized on All India basis, participated. A H 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A consensus was arrived at in the abovementioned Conference to adopt the symbol system. It was with the creation of the Symbols Order, 1968, that for the first time, the Election Commission conferred on itself the authority to recognise or refuse to recognise or derecognise B political parties, which did not demonstrate that they have some minimum political following and legislative presence. Till 1996, gaining recognition from the Election Commission did not confer any advantage on a political party other than securing the reservation of a symbol c commonly for all the candidates set up by such a party at any election. Political parties could still set up, then and now also, candidates at any election irrespective of the fact whether they are recognised by the Election Commission or not. It is only much later (1996), certain 0 legal rights and obligations came to emanate from the factum of recognition or lack of it. [para 7, 50 and 51) [1121-C-D; 1149-A-B; 1148-G-H] 2.4. The substance of the provisions of the Symbols Order is that, no political party is entitled for allotment or E use of an election symbol permanently. The allotment of an exclusive election symbol is available to a political party only so long as it is recognised by the Election Commission. Securing the recognition and its continuance depends upon the performance of the F political party at every succeeding general election. Therefore, newly formed political parties are not entitled, as a matter of right, for the exclusive allotment of a common election symbol for the benefit of all the candidates set up by them at any election. Such G candidates are required to choose one of the free symbols notified by the Election Commission. Therefore, all the candidates set up by a political party need not get the same symbol at a general election. Even in the case of an existing political party, which was recognised at H some anterior point of time, but lost the recognition in view of its inadequate performance at c;iny general DESIYAMURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM v. ELECTION1091 COMMISSION OF INDIA election or in the case of a political party, which contested A a general election, but failed to satisfy the requisite standards of performance stipulated in the Symbols Order, a common symbol would not be available for the exclusive use of such party's candidates at any subsequent election beyond a period specified in para B 10A. [para 19-20] (1128-E-H; 1129-A-B] Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India, 2008 (13) SCR 846 = (2008) 14 SCC 318; Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762; Superintendent & Legal Remembrancer State of West Bengal v. Corporation of C Calcutta (1967) 2 SCR 170 and Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar (1955) 2 SCR 603 - referred to. 3.1 Until 1985, the Constitution of India made no reference to political parties. It was by the Fifty Second 0 Amendment that the Tenth Schedule was added to the Constitution, where the expression "political party" occurs. The Tenth Schedule recognises the existence of political parties and the practice of political parties setting up candidates for election to either of the Houses of Parliament or State Legislature. However, the Election E Commission recognised, from the inception, the existence of political parties and the practice of political parties setting up candidates at elections to any one of the Houses created by the Constitution. [para 39] (1142D-F] F William vs. Rhodes 393 US 23 (1968) - referred to. 3.2 Art. 19(1)(c) confers a fundamental right on all citizens to form associations or associate with organisations of their choice. Therefore, all the citizens G have a fundamental right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and opinions held by them and can either form or join a political party of their choice. A political party is nothing but an association of individuals pursuing certain shared beliefs. Political H 1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A parties are, no doubt, not citizens, but their members are generally citizens. Therefore, any restriction imposed on political parties would directly affect the fundamental rights of its members. [para 40) [1142-F; 1143-A-C-D] 8 Ramesh Thapper v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594 = AIR 1950 SC 124 .... referred to. 3.3 The Symbols Order, insofar as it provides for the allotment of a symbol for the exclusive use only of a recognised political party's candidates, certainly creates c a disadvantage to the political parties, which have not been able to secure recognition from the Election Commission apart from creating two classes of political parties. The citizens' right to form or join a political party for the advancement of political goals means little if such 0 a party is subjected to a disadvantage, in the matter of contesting elections. [para 42) [1144-C-D] Shri Sadiq Ali and anr. v The Election Commission Of India, New Delhi and Ors. 1972 (2) SCR 318 = (1972) 4 SCC 664; and Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and Ors. 1985 (3) E Suppl. SCR 1 = (1985) 4 SCC 628 - referred to. 3.4 Except for the Tenth Schedule, which is a relatively recent addition to the Constitution, no other provision of the Constitution, expressly refers to the F political parties either recognised or unrecognised. The R.P. Act, as it was originally enacted, also did not make any reference to a political party. The expression "political party" was first introduced in the R.P. Act in the year 1989 by the amending Act No.1 of 1989. Section 2 (f) was inserted, which provides for the definition of the G expression "political party". Simultaneously, by the same amending Act, Part - IV A was introduced into the Act, which dealt with the registration of political parties with the Election Commission and the advantages flowing from such registration. The expression "recognised H political party" was first introduced in the Act by Act DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM v. ELECTION 1093 COMMISSION OF INDIA No.21 of 1996, in the proviso to s. 33 and sub-s. (2) of s.38. A Later, such an expression was employed in s.39A and in the second explanation to sub-s. (1) of s.77, s. 78A and s. 788, which occur under Part-VA of the Act by the amending Act No.46 of 2003. The Explanation to s. 788(2), defines the expression "unrecognised political party" for B the limited purposes mentioned therein. None of the provisions referred to in the explanation deal with the allotment of a reserved symbol. Thus, there is a statutory compulsion (post 1996) on the part of the Election Commission to recognise or not to recognise a political c party as it is only on the basis of the recognition by the Election Commission, the rights or obligations created under the abovementioned provisions come into play. There is still no constitutional compulsion in that regard. [para 45] [1145-D-H; 1146-B-C] D 3.5 Though, post-1996, the R.P. Act, 1951, obligates the Election Commission to confer recognition on some political parties for certain purposes, the Act does not stipulate the criteria on the basis of which such recognition is to be accorded. It simply borrowed the E definition of the expression 'recognised political party' from the Symbols Order, thereby leaving it to the discretion of the Election Commission to recognise or not to recognise a political party on such terms and conditions, which the Election Commission deems fit. F But, there is nothing either in R.P. Act, or any other law, which obligates the Election Commission to accord recognition to a political party on the basis of its performance at an election. [para 46] [1146-D-E] F 3.6 Thus, it is not legally obligatory for the Election Commission to choose the criteria of performance at an election for the purpose of according or refusing to accord recognition to a political party. It so happened that such a criterion was chosen by the Election Commission well before the R.P. Act obliged the Election Commission H 1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A to undertake the exercise and the Parliament while amending the R.P. Act simply took note of the existing practice of the Election Commission. Even on date, there is nothing in the law, which prevents the Election Commission from changing the criteria for conferring B recognition on a political party. [para 46] [1146-G-H] 3.7 Once a qualified voter decides to contest an election under the provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951, whether such a voter is sponsored by a political party or not, whether such a political party is recognised by the C Election Commission or not, there is no way under the law, to prevent him from contesting. Also the Election Commission is bound to allot pictorial symbols to each such candidate. [P,ara 53] [1149-H; 1150-A] 0 4.1 All political parties form one class. All of them have the same goal of propagating their respective political ideas though the ideas themselves may differ. The endeavour of all the political parties is to capture the State power in order to implement their respective E policies, professedly, for the benefit of the society in general. Transient success or failure cannot be the basis to determine the constitutional rights of the candidates or members of such political parties. The enjoyment of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made dependent upon the popularity of a F person or an idea held by the person. Otherwise, it would be the very antithesis of liberty and freedom. The constitutional guarantees are meant to protect the unpopular, the minorities and their rights. Denying the benefit of a symbol to the candidates of a political party, G whose performance does not meet the standards set up by the Election Commission, would disable such political party from effectively contesting the election, thereby, negating the right. of an association to effectively pursue its political beliefs. [para 54] [1150-C-H; 1151-A-B] H DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM v. FLECTION 1095 COMMISSION OF INDIA 4.2 The classification created in the Symbols Order A does not satisfy the doctrine of reasonable classification as envisaged by Art.14. The Symbols Order certainly violates the prohibition contained under Arti. 14. [para 43, 55-56] [1152-A; 1145-A] 4.3 It is not sufficient for a law to survive the challenge B under Art. 14 to demonstrate that the law makes a classification based on intelligible differentia between two groups of persons or things. It must also be established that such differentia have a rational relation to the object C sought to be achieved by such classification. Therefore, the Symbols Order has to satisfy (i) the test of being a reasonable restriction designed to achieve any of the purposes specified under Art. 19(2) and (4); and (ii) the twin tests of being a reasonable classification, and having a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such D classification. [para 42, 56] [1144-E-F; 1152-E] Budhan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar, (1955) 1 SCR 1045 - relied on 4.4 The object sought to be achieved by the Election Commission by the Symbols Order is to avoid the confusion in the minds of the voters at the time of voting. Such a result is said to be achieved by the Election Commission by denying recognition to the political party with insignificant following, thereby, denying them the benefit of the reservation of an exclusive symbol to its candidates. [para 57] [1152-G] 4.5 There is nothing either in the Constitution or in E F the R.P. Act, 1951 or any other law, which prohibits an G unrecognised political party from setting up candidates at an election. The legal position is the same with regard to even independent candidates. Therefore, notwithstanding the refusal of recognition by the Election Commission, unrecognised or derecognised political H 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A parties or independent candidates without any party support can still contest the election. Candidates set up by an unregistered political party can also contest an election as registration u/s 29A of the R.P. Act is not mandatory for a political party, except that registration B begets certain advantages specified in the R.P. Act, 1951 to a political party. The Election Commission is bound to allot a symbol to any of the candidates belonging to any one of the abovementioned categories. [para 58] [1153B-D] C 4.6 Therefore, there is no rational nexus between the D classification of recognised and unrecognised political parties and the professed purpose sought to be achieved by such classification. On the other hand, it is likely to preserve the political status quo. [para 58] [1153-E] 4.7 In a "democratic set up", while the majorities rule, minorities are entitled to protection. Otherwise, the mandate of Art. 14 would be meaningless. The status of majority or minority, even an insignificant minority, could E only be transient. Further, the question as to what is the legitimate purpose sought to be achieved by the classification under the Symbols Order, was not considered. [para 59] [1154-E] 4.8 It is, therefore, held the Symbols Order, insofar as F it denies the reservation of a symbol for the exclusive allotment of the candidates set up by a political party with "insignificant poll performance", is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. [para 60] [1154-G] G H Case Law Reference: As per Altamas Kabir, J. 1972 (2) SCR 318 1978 (1) SCR 393 1983 (1) SCR 702 relied on cited relied on para 7 para 8 para 8 DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM v. ELECTION1097 COMMISSION OF INDIA 1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 relied c.n 2002 (3) SCR 696 referred to 2003 (2) SCR 1136 referred to 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 cited 1964 SCR 332 cited 1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 cited (1962) 3 SCR 842 cited 1972 (2) SCR 318 424 us 1 (1976); 491 us 397 (1989) 2008 (13) SCR 846 1993 (1) SCR 786 As per chelameswar, J. citi?d cited cited relied on cited 1972 (2) SCR 318 referred to 1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 referred to p