Today (27/01/2026), the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s first bench continued its marathon hearing for the 4th day, heard the matter relating to one stroke delisting of 474 political parties. The Hon’ble Madras High Court closely examined the Election Commission of India’s authority to “delist” registered political parties, raising significant constitutional questions about the absence of explicit statutory backing for such power and its implications for political participation and democratic freedoms.
Today (27/01/2026), the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s first bench continued its marathon hearing for the 4th day, heard the matter relating to one stroke delisting of 474 political parties. The Hon’ble Madras High Court closely examined the Election Commission of India’s authority to “delist” registered political parties, raising significant constitutional questions about the absence of explicit statutory backing for such power and its implications for political participation and democratic freedoms.
The issue arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 by group of political parties challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Election Commission proposing its delisting. The petitioner contended that the notice was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Writ Petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates S. Prabakaran and Wilson.
Senior Counsel S Prabakaran, today concluded his arguments that was made on the previous hearings placing reliance upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stating that guidelines formulated by the Election Commission of India would not have the same effects as that of the statutory rules and that guidlines are only advisory and administrative in nature and cannot be treated on similar lane to that of statutory rules.
Another Senior Council Mr Srinivasan appearing for one the writ petitioners in the batch matter made a contention relying on a INC judgement that the ECI power to deregister is confined to 3 specific grounds. On hearing the contention, the Hon’ble Court queried as to what is the likewise ground mentioned in the judgement. The Senior Counsel replied that the likewise ground is a fraud played and matters not requiring any enquiry. In this regard Senior Counsel S Prabakaran highlighted a particular paragraph of the INC judgement and submitted that the like wise ground where inquiry in not needed is few circumstances where a party itself is banned under the provisions of law like UAPA, this submission was agreed by the Hon’ble Court and learned Senior Council Mr Prabakaran submitted that the present case can only be termed as a violation of guideline which do not have any statutory force.
Appearing for the Election Commission of India, Senior Counsel G. Rajagopalan relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Janata Dal case (1996), submitting that even in respect of quasi-judicial functions, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act would apply. Reference was also made to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Indian National Congress case (2002) in support of this proposition.
The respondent’s senior counsel argued that Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests wide powers in the Election Commission relating to the preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections, must be read harmoniously with Article 327, which empowers the legislature to enact laws governing elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. According to the Election Commission, any legislation enacted under Article 327 must be construed as being subject to the overarching constitutional mandate of Article 324.
Tracing the legislative history of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Senior counsel pointed out that the provision relating to the registration of political parties originally existed as Paragraph 3 of the Election Symbols Order, 1968. In 1989, Parliament incorporated this provision verbatim into the Representation of the People Act as Section 29A, following which Paragraph 3 of the Symbols Order was deleted in 1992. It was argued that had Paragraph 3 continued to exist in the Symbols Order, the Election Commission’s power to deregister political parties would have been unquestionable in light of the Janata Dal judgment.
The central question, therefore, according to the respondent, was whether the Election Commission lost its power to delist political parties merely because the provision was shifted into a statute enacted under Article 327. It was submitted that accepting such a proposition would imply that a law enacted by Parliament could curtail or negate the constitutional authority of the Election Commission under Article 324—an interpretation that would be constitutionally impermissible. The legislature, it was argued, could not strip the Election Commission of its authority over political parties or confer immunity upon them from its regulatory control.
