The Election Commission on Monday allotted the “bicycle” symbol to the Akhilesh faction of the Samajwadi Party as the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister enjoyed majority in the party’s organisational and legislative structures. The Commission concluded that there was indeed a split in the party.
In a 42-page order, which has come as a big jolt to party founder Mulayam Singh, the Commission weighed the arguments put forth by him and the Akhilesh group: the first claiming that there was no split in the party and that he was still its national president and the latter asserting that it enjoyed the majority and, therefore, was entitled to the party symbol.
Ramgopal’s detailed lists
Represented by senior counsels Rajeev Dhavan and Kapil Sibal during the hearing on January 13, the Akhilesh faction submitted that Ramgopal Yadav had filed individual affidavits of support from an overwhelming majority of members at all levels of the party, including parliamentarians, MLAs, MLCs, National Executive membes, and delegates of the National Council, the total amounting to almost 90 per cent of the party’s total strength.
On the other hand, Mr. Mulayam did not submit any affidavit to show the support enjoyed by him in any of these categories. Noting that despite directions, he had not filed any such affidavit claiming support, the Commission accepted the rival faction’s arguments.
However, to determine whether to which faction the party symbol should be allocated, the Commission had to first decide if there was a split in the party as per Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, which defines the Commission’s power in relation to splinter groups or rival sections of a recognised party.
The Mulayam faction averred that he was still the party’s national president; that the January 1 national convention, in which Mr. Akhilesh was elected the national president, was convened in violation of the party’s constitution.
EC quotes Cong., NCP splits on test of majority
The Commission noted that the facts and circumstances of the present case were to a large extent similar to those in the case of the split in the Indian National Congress. It stated that it was perfectly justified in applying the same test of majority in the present case.
Facts and circumstances of the dispute relating to the Telugu Desam Party decided by the Commission in January, 1996, were also similar. More relevant was the decision in March, 2004, pertaining to the split in the Nationalist Congress Party in which the symbol went to the Sharad Pawar group, the Commission said.
Mr. Mulayam had contended during the January 13 hearing that there was no splinter group as such and, therefore, the Commission had no jurisdiction to decide the issue. Mr Singh had submitted that it was only an administrative dispute and not a split in the party. He said that the convention that elected Mr. Akhilesh as party presidnt was illegal according to the party constitution.
