The Calcutta high court on Monday observed that the authorities should be fair before the court while hearing the challenge by Indian Secular Front (ISF) over the reassignment of the party symbol and also act in a manner to avoid future complications so that the court isn’t burdened with litigations. The court also questioned whether there was any “connivance” between the poll body and the newly formed Democratic Trinamool Congress (DTC).
A high court bench of justice Krishna Rao was hearing the petition filed by the ISF, challenging the reassignment of its “envelop” symbol to one of the Trinamool Congress factions — the DTC — by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the upcoming assembly bypolls on October 6. The bench questioned the rationale behind allotting the symbol to a new party despite it being disputed, without considering the ISF’s application which was before the court on September 17.
In its petition, the ISF stated that the “envelop” symbol was allotted to it in March before the assembly elections, however the poll body has now allotted the “almirah” symbol to the party for the bypolls.
Deep Dive
Why is the Calcutta high court examining the reassignment of the ISF party symbol?
How does the Election Commission decide on the allotment of party symbols for by-elections?
What implications does the Supreme Court's decision have on the TMC symbol dispute?
“Does the ECI say that by-election is an independent election? Byelection is the continuation of the 2026 general election. I had ‘envelope’ as the symbol in general election. How can that be negated in by-election? The court has repeatedly put forward this question, but the answer hasn’t come,” Bhattacharyya added.
However, the ECI’s counsel, advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, submitted that allotment of symbols was within the commission’s discretion and that it had acted according to law to allot the symbols to both the parties. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya argued that the discretion must be exercised reasonably and rationally and “cannot be absolute like an autocrat”.
{{/usCountry}}However, the ECI’s counsel, advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, submitted that allotment of symbols was within the commission’s discretion and that it had acted according to law to allot the symbols to both the parties. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya argued that the discretion must be exercised reasonably and rationally and “cannot be absolute like an autocrat”.
{{/usCountry}}Meanwhile, the court observed that the advocates appearing for the parties appeared to reveal “what the connivance is” between them. Justice Rao told the EC counsel that since he was appearing for a constitutional body, he should be ready with answers to all questions posed by the court and could not take anyone else’s assistance.
“Authorities should act in a way to avoid future complications so that court isn’t burdened with litigations,” justice Rao. “The authorities should be fair before the court,” he added.
The ECI’s counsel said the private respondent’s lawyer had not told him anything.
He also said it was “not a correct observation” by the court that he was being dictated by a political party and that there was no reason for such an allegation.
Chowdhury also told the court that general elections and by-elections are separate and the free-symbol isn’t an asset of a party.
“General elections and by-elections are separate. There is no impediment in the law to allot the ‘envelope’ symbol to the Democratic Trinamool Congress. This not a case of apparent illegality,” Chowdhury said.
The court asked the EC counsel what provision the authorities had considered while allotting the symbol to the DTC.
The EC counsel said there were specific provisions under the Symbols Order and The Conduct of Election Rules for allotment of free symbols in bypolls. Chowdhury said after the conclusion of a general election, symbols allotted to unrecognised parties become free and can be allotted to anyone.
Chowdhury said there was no impediment to allotting a symbol to a party in a bypoll and maintained that the decision was correct.
The hearing in the matter was concluded, and the court reserved its order.