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

The Election Commission of India's (ECI) invitation to the two rival Trinamool Congress factions for hearings on 12 September 2026 over the 'Joda Ghash Phool' symbol [5] has revived a recurring question: from where does an electoral watchdog derive the authority to decide who owns a party's name and symbol?

Constitutional basis

• Article 324 vests in the ECI the superintendence, direction and control of elections; the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 was promulgated in exercise of this very power [1].
• Article 324 operates as a plenary, gap-filling power — where no enacted law covers a situation, the Commission may act, provided it observes natural justice.
• The Supreme Court in Sadiq Ali v. ECI (1971), arising from the Congress split, upheld the ECI's jurisdiction under the Symbols Order to decide between rival groups [3].

Statutory and legal framework

• Section 29A, Representation of the People Act, 1951 makes the ECI the registering authority for political parties — name approval flows from this [2].
• Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968 empowers the Commission, after hearing the factions, to decide which group is that party, or that none is [1].
• The test applied is the majority of support in the organisational and legislative wings; the exercise is quasi-judicial, and an interim freeze is an administrative safeguard, not a final verdict on legitimacy [1][3].

Recent illustrations

• Shiv Sena (2022): before the Andheri East bypoll, the ECI barred both the Shinde and Thackeray groups from the name and the 'bow-and-arrow', directing them to adopt new names and free symbols [4].
• LJP and AIADMK disputes followed comparable reasoning [4].
• Trinamool Congress (2026): hearings precede the Nandigram and Rejinagar bypolls of 6 October, compressing adjudication into the nomination timeline [5].

Symbol adjudication is thus constitutionally anchored and judicially validated, yet strengthened internal party democracy, time-bound reasoned orders and tests looking beyond legislative headcount would better serve the free and fair elections Article 324 envisages.