Discuss the constitutional and statutory basis of the Election Commission's power to adjudicate disputes over party symbols. Illustrate with a recent example.

Election symbols are the visual identity through which a largely non-literate-friendly electorate recognises parties on the ballot. When a recognised party splits, deciding which faction inherits the name and symbol is entrusted not to courts in the first instance, but to the Election Commission of India (ECI), acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Constitutional basis

• Article 324 vests in the ECI the superintendence, direction and control of elections — a plenary power read as including residuary authority to fill legislative gaps [1].
• The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 was promulgated under Article 324 read with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 [1].
• ECI decisions remain subject to writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court, preserving judicial oversight.

Statutory basis

• Section 29A, Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for registration of political parties, the gateway to recognition and a reserved symbol [1].
• Para 15 of the 1968 Order empowers the ECI to decide rival claims by sections or groups of a recognised party — the operative provision in every split [1].
• Adjudication follows the "test of majority", weighing support in the organisational wing (office-bearers, committees) and the legislative wing (MLAs/MPs), as applied in the Indian National Congress dispute, Case No. 1 of 1996 [2], and later in the Shiv Sena and NCP splits.

Recent illustration

• In September 2026 the ECI summoned rival Trinamool Congress factions — led by Mamata Banerjee and Ritabrata Banerjee — over the party name and the "Twin Flowers on Grass" symbol, holding successive hearings at its headquarters ahead of Assembly bypolls [5].
• The case exposes two gaps: legislative-wing headcounts are easily counted while internal party records are unverifiable, and a mass walkout that strengthens a symbol claim may simultaneously attract disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, whose "split" defence was deleted by the 91st Amendment, 2003 [3].

The ECI's symbol jurisdiction is thus constitutionally robust but evidentially one-legged. Making internal party elections and audited membership rolls a condition of continued recognition — extending the Standing Committee on Law and Justice (2013) logic of statutory teeth for the ECI [4] — and time-bounding Speakers' defection rulings would align Article 324's mandate of free and fair elections with genuine intra-party democracy.