Latest revision as of 07:30, 23 July 2023

[edit] Internal Matters

[edit] Courts Can’t Interfere: SC

Dhananjay Mahapatra, July 7, 2022: The Times of India

New Delhi: Frowning at the Madras HC’s intervention in the situation arising from factional feud in AIADMK, the Supreme Court said judiciary can’t assume jurisdiction to fix parameters for decision making on internal matters of a political party.


Unfettering the general council of AIADMK to decide what it deems fit in its July 11 meeting, a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari said, “Can a court pass orders to a party on how it should conduct its meetings? Who wants to do what in a party is essentially a matter for the party. ”


The feud in the principal opposition party in Tamil Nadu had reached SC with Edapaddi K Palaniswamy challenging the June 23 order of a division bench of the Madras HC allowing rival O Panneerselvam the power to veto any resolution for single leadership in the party. The SC bench stayed the June 23 order.

Appearing for Palaniswamy, advocate CS Vaidyanathan said the Panneerselvam faction has moved the HC seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for alleged violation of HC or- ders during the June 23 meeting of the general council. He said the next meeting is fixed for July 11.

The Panneerselvam faction, through advocate Maninder Singh, accused the other faction of attempting to destabilise the party.

“Can we fix the boundaries for the general council? Is it within our jurisdiction? The party must work out its disputes within the party,” the bench said. “It’s necessary and expedient to stay the HC’s June 23 order in view of the other steps and proceedings (contempt) taken up or likely to be taken up pursuant to observations/ directions of the HC and in view of the questions raised in the present petition (by Palaniswamy). Meeting of general council of AIADMK on July 11 will proceed in accordance with law. . . The single judge of HC is free to proceed with issues pending before him,” it added.

[edit] Splits in political parties

[edit] EC’s criteria, 2022-23

July 6, 2023: The Times of India

SENA SYMBOL DECISION 


The Election Commission (EC) on Feb 17 recognised chief minister Eknath Shinde’s party faction as the real Shiv Sena and allotted the ‘bow & arrow’ poll symbol to it

CLAIMANTS

The Shiv Sena symbol was claimed by the party’s two rival factions led by Shinde and former chief minister Uddhav Thackeray

Stop-gap arrangement

|After the party split, the factions started using separate party names and symbols allotted to them by the EC after it froze the Shiv Sena name and party symbol till such time that it would decide the dispute

EC’S REASONING


In its order, the Election Commission said that Shiv Sena’s constitution, amended in 2018, was not on record of poll panel:

“The constitution of political parties ought to provide for free, fair and transparent elections to the posts of office bearers and a further free and fair procedure for the resolution of internal disputes. These procedures ought to be difficult to amend and should be amendable only after ensuring larger support of the organisational members for the same

“The Constitution of Shiv Sena, amended in 2018, is not given to EC. Amendments had undone the act of introducing democratic norms in the Party Constitution of 1999, brought by the Late Bal Thackeray at the insistence of EC

HOW DOES EC DECIDE

Usually, the first step in symbol disputes is exchanging the material put on record by either faction with the other faction

NCP’S CASE

Ajit faction, in its letter to EC staking claim to NCP party name and symbol, has reportedly claimed the support of 50 MLAs, MLCs and MPs

Sharad group has filed a caveat, requesting that no decision be taken by EC on Ajit’s plea without hearing its version, and informing about the expulsion of 9 MLAs by Sharad group

WHAT ELSE EC MAY CONSIDER

Organizational strength

| Number of office-bearers and functionaries on each side

Strength in legislature

| Number of MLAs and MLCs (in bicameral legislatures) on each side

Party constitution

|Organizational structure, mode of internal election and method of appointing office-bearers as enunciated

[edit] Three test formula of SC 1971

Bharti Jain, July 10, 2023: The Times of India

Former chief election commissioners O P Rawat and Sunil Arora, when contacted by TOI, concurred that Sadiq Ali verdict remains the template for deciding all matters under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order.


“The Sadiq Ali judgement has been the ‘lighthouse’ for successive poll commissions,” underlined former CEC Sunil Arora. 
The 1971 judgement – which had upheld the order passed by EC in the case relating to split in Congress, allotting the party’s reserved ‘two bullocks with yoke’ symbol to the group led by Jagjivan Ram – lays down three fundamental tests for deciding poll symbol disputes between factions of a party in the event of a split. These are: the test of aims and objects of the party; test of party constitution; and test of majority.


Under the first test, EC determines if either of the split groups deviated from the ‘aims and objects’ of the party, forming the core point of disagreement between them. Test of party constitution requires EC to confirm if the affairs of the party were being conducted as per its constitution and reflect inner party democracy. The third and last test – test of majority – involves gauging the numerical strength of the factions in the legislative and organisational set-up of the party.


While deciding a faction’s strength in the legislative wing of the party, EC usually goes by the number of MPs,MLAs or MLCs supporting each faction, based on the affidavits or signed documents submitted by them, as well as the total votes polled by them at the last parliamentary or state election.


EC also applies the test of majority in the party’s organisational wing, weighing support pledged by party members to each faction. “SC, in Sadiq Ali order, had held that EC must decide on matters under Para 15 (of Symbols Order) with a certain measure of promptitude, ensuring that the inquiry is not bogged down in a quagmire,” Arora recalled. For this purpose, SC had acknowledged that members of AICC and the delegates reflected by and large the views of primary members, given the practical difficulty in ascertaining the wishes of primary members spread across the country.


“While there are three criteria, only the one which gives a clear result beyond doubt, is applied to decide the symbol dispute, while others are dropped,” Rawat said, recalling how EC was sent two truckloads of affidavits of party members while adjudicating the dispute over AIADMK’s ‘two leaves’ symbol. “Verifying so many affidavits was not possible,” Rawat said and added that other tests were thus relied upon by EC.


Even in the Shiv Sena dispute verdict pronounced on February 17, EC had found averments under the test of aims and objects, test of party constitution andtest of majority in terms of organisational strength, inconclusive. It finally went only by the test of majority in legislature to allot the Sena name and reserved symbol to the faction led by Eknath Shinde.


After the rival factions of a party file the requisite documentation such as letters or affidavits of support from MLAs/MPs/MLCs and also resolutions electing their respective leaders as “party chief” along with details of expulsions and counter-expulsion, EC first determines if the matter warrants proceedings under Para 15 of the Symbols Order. The documents submitted by each side are shared to help them frame their future arguments.


Usually, if a poll or bypoll is imminent, the EC acknowledges the split and in the interest of ensuring a level playing field, may freeze the reserved symbol and ask the rival factions to choose a separate party name and symbol until final settlement of the row.


EC then starts hearings in a quasi-judicial capacity, giving lawyers from each faction ample opportunity to make their arguments. Going by the latest case of Shiv Sena dispute, arguments can take over six months. 
In its final order, the poll panel declares as to which faction it recognises as the real party, eligible for use of the reserved symbol. This ‘speaking’ order clearly records the reasoning behind EC’s decision.