Delhi High Court Clarifies ECI's Limited Role in Internal Disputes of Unrecognized Political Parties

Court Affirms ECI's Lack of Jurisdiction in Leadership Disputes within Unrecognized Political Parties; Disputes to Be Resolved by Civil Courts

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna, has clarified the jurisdictional boundaries of the Election Commission of India (ECI) concerning internal disputes within unrecognized political parties. The court was addressing a writ petition filed by M/s Pattali Makkal Katchi, challenging the ECI's communications that recognized Dr. R. Anbumani as the President of the party until August 2026.

The petitioner, through its founder Dr. S. Ramadoss, contended that Dr. Anbumani's tenure as President had expired in May 2025, and subsequent communications were made to ECI regarding a change in leadership. Despite these notifications, the ECI issued letters extending Dr. Anbumani's tenure, which the petitioner argued was beyond the ECI's jurisdiction.

The court reiterated that the ECI's role is limited to updating its records based on the information provided by the parties, as mandated under Section 29A(9) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It emphasized that the ECI does not have the authority to adjudicate internal disputes or rival claims within unrecognized political parties, which are deemed private matters. Such disputes, the court noted, fall under the purview of civil courts.

The ruling draws on previous judgments, including those in "Chandra Prakash Kaushik v. Election Commission of India" and "Swami Chakrapani v. Election Commission of India," which have consistently held that ECI's jurisdiction is restricted to recognized political parties under Clause 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The court underscored that internal disputes of unrecognized parties must be resolved through civil litigation.

The High Court also acknowledged a similar judgment by the Madras High Court, which directed parties in a similar dispute to seek resolution through civil courts rather than writ petitions. The decision underscores the judiciary's consistent stance on limiting ECI's role in private disputes of political parties.

The ECI's counsel affirmed the body's position that it does not engage in fact-finding or decision-making regarding internal party disputes, aligning with the judicial interpretation of its limited mandate.

This ruling reinforces the principle that internal disputes of unrecognized political parties remain outside the ECI's jurisdiction, directing parties to seek appropriate remedies in civil courts.

Bottom Line:

Election Commission of India (ECI) lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate internal disputes of unrecognized political parties, including disputes over leadership or office bearers. Such disputes must be resolved by civil courts of competent jurisdiction.

Statutory provision(s): Representation of The People Act, 1951 Section 29A(9), Writ Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 Clause 15

M/s Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2819358