Discuss the scope of the Election Commission's powers under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, in adjudicating disputes between rival factions of a political party. Is this quasi-judicial function consistent with principles of natural justice?

The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 is a subordinate order framed by the ECI under Article 324, not a parliamentary statute. Its Paragraph 15 makes the Commission the sole forum for deciding which of two rival sections is the "real" party — a power now tested by the freeze on the Trinamool Congress name and symbol.

Scope of the power

• Applies when a recognised party splits into rival sections each claiming to be that party; the ECI decides which faction, if any, is entitled to the name and reserved symbol, and its decision is binding on all factions [1].
• Discretion is wide: it may hold that no faction qualifies, freeze the original symbol and allot interim names and symbols for an imminent poll — as done for the TMC factions before the Nandigram and Rejinagar bypolls [5].
• Tests are judicially settled: Sadiq Ali v. ECI (1971) upheld the majority test across organisational and legislature wings, read with the party constitution and aims [3].
• Applied repeatedly — Congress (1969; Dispute Case No. 1 of 1996), LJP (2021), Shiv Sena (2022–23) [2].

Where it satisfies natural justice

• Paragraph 15 obliges the Commission to hear both rival sections on notice, with documentary proof of support, before a reasoned, published order [1][2].
• Orders remain open to judicial review; a freeze treats both factions equally instead of pre-judging ownership.

Where it strains natural justice

• Verifying the organisational wing is slow, so a legislator head-count becomes decisive — here, the counted legislators themselves face disqualification before a Speaker bound by no statutory deadline [4].
• No outer time limit for concluding a Paragraph 15 inquiry; an "interim" freeze can span successive elections.
• Review reaching the court after polling offers little real remedy.

Paragraph 15 is thus a necessary and broadly fair mechanism whose fairness is diluted by timing rather than design. The ECI, which authored the Order, can itself prescribe a time limit for completing inquiries and deepen organisational verification, while courts list pre-poll symbol petitions on priority — keeping symbol adjudication faithful to the Article 324 mandate of free and fair elections.