The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not have the power to adjudicate internal disputes within an unrecognised political party, and that such disputes must instead be resolved through a civil suit. The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), through its founder-President, challenging letters issued by the ECI that extended the tenure of a previous office-bearer, asserting that the ECI’s action implicitly approved a rival faction’s claim to leadership.
In this case, the petitioner founder, Dr. S. Ramadoss, claimed he was the rightful President, while a second claimant asserted that he — a relative — was the current President, with tenure valid until August 2026. The dispute between the two groups formed the core of the challenge. The Court noted that the conflict was essentially an “internal private dispute” concerning designation of party office-bearers within a registered but unrecognised political party.
The bench observed that the ECI’s regulatory framework empowers it to act when there are disputes between rival factions of a recognised political party under the relevant election symbols law. However, there is no corresponding provision that empowers the ECI to resolve rival claims within a registered unrecognised political party. As a result, any decision by the ECI on such a matter would lie beyond its statutory jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that the ECI “is not vested with the power to entertain or adjudicate claims of rival sections or groups” of an unrecognised party. The petition was thus dismissed, and the Court directed that the dispute be resolved through an appropriate civil remedy, such as a declaratory suit.
In support of its reasoning, the Court drew upon earlier precedents, including rulings that hold the role of the ECI under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is limited to registration and record-keeping. The ECI does not have supervisory or adjudicatory authority over a political party’s internal constitution or elections. Accordingly, matters such as rival claims to leadership, internal elections, or alleged violations of a party’s internal rules fall outside its purview.
By this decision, the Court reaffirmed the principle that internal disputes within unrecognised political parties must be resolved in civil courts rather than before the ECI, preserving the distinction between administrative record-keeping by ECI and adjudication of private legal disputes regarding party leadership.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.