They emphasized that the ECI’s order was mechanical and arbitrary, ignored the party’s representations, and would have serious civil and democratic consequences, including denial of statutory benefits and loss of entitlement to a common symbol under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, effectively erasing the party’s political identity/ video.
24/01, 18:40] Sekarreporter: The Madras High Court comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice MM Shrivatsava and Hon’ble Justice Arulmurugan is closely examining the Election Commission of India’s purported authority to “delist” political parties, raising constitutional concerns about the Commission’s lack of statutory authority and the potential impact on political participation and democratic freedoms. https://www.sekarreporter.com/the-madras-high-court-comprising-of-honble-chief-justice-mm-shrivatsava-and-honble-justice-arulmurugan-is-closely-examining-the-election-commission-of-indias-purported-authority-to/
[24/01, 18:44] Sekarreporter: [24/01, 18:43] Sekarreporter: https://x.com/i/status/2015050165800034649
[24/01, 18:44] Sekarreporter: “The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates S. Prabakaran, Wilson and N L Raja.
The petitioner Senior Counsels argued that “delisting” is not allowed by law because the Representation of the People Act of 1951 or any other law does not give the Election Commission the power to do so. They contended that dependence on Article 324”
[24/01, 18:52] Sekarreporter: [24/01, 18:48] Sekarreporter: https://x.com/i/status/2015051433348149509
[24/01, 18:52] Sekarreporter: [24/01, 18:43] Sekarreporter: https://x.com/i/status/2015050165800034649
[24/01, 18:44] Sekarreporter: “The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates S. Prabakaran, Wilson and N L Raja.
The petitioner Senior Counsels argued that “delisting” is not allowed by law because the Representation of the People Act of 1951 or any other law does not give the Election Commission the power to do so. They contended that dependence on Article 324”
[24/01, 19:06] Sekarreporter: “petitioners senior Counsel Wilson and Prabakaran criticised the proceedings as mechanical and lacking application of mind, noting that their inclusion among 474 parties indicated a blanket, automated exercise rather than an individual assessment. The action ignored the petitioner’s explanations and evidence, violating principles of natural justice. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the party had actively contested elections, including the upcoming one, as well as previous general, state, and local body elections, often in alliance, and contended that the Election Commission of India, with malafide intent, delisted the party on a frivolous ground of non-participation over the past six years. They emphasized that the ECI’s order was mechanical and arbitrary, ignored the party’s representations, and would have serious civil and democratic consequences, including denial of statutory benefits and loss of entitlement to a common symbol under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, effectively erasing the party’s political identity. The learned counsel also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsels Prabhakaran and Wilson.”
[24/01, 19:27] Sekarreporter:
