Examine how intra-party splits test the boundary between the Election Commission's administrative and adjudicatory roles, with reference to recent cases.

Allotting symbols is an administrative function of the Election Commission under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968; but Paragraph 15 of the same Order makes it a quasi-judicial arbiter of which faction is the "real" recognised party [1]. A split forces both roles into the same, election-bound timetable.

Where the two roles pull apart

• Administrative logic is speed: a returning officer cannot allot one reserved symbol to two rival candidates, so a decision must precede nomination deadlines.
• Adjudicatory logic is due process: notices, hearings, affidavits of office-bearers and verification of membership — a months-long inquiry [1].
• The 1968 Order provides no appeal against a Paragraph 15 order, so the only remedy is a writ petition, pushing every split into court [1].

How splits blur the boundary — recent cases

• Shiv Sena (2022–23): the EC first allotted both groups fresh names and symbols, then by its final order in Dispute Case No. 1 of 2022 awarded the original name and symbol to the Shinde faction, weighing heavily the legislative-wing majority [2]. Legislator headcount is countable; the organisational wing, absent audited membership rolls, is not.
• Parallel forums: Tenth Schedule disqualification proceedings before the Speaker ran alongside the symbol dispute, with no rule settling which decides first [3].
• Trinamool Congress (September 2026): the EC's interim freeze of the party name and "flowers and grass" symbol before the October 6 Nandigram and Rejinagar bypolls is administratively even-handed, yet an interim order is final for that election — votes cast under a new symbol cannot be recalled [4]. Mamata Banerjee's challenge is now before the Supreme Court.

An "interim" administrative device thus quietly decides the adjudicatory question. The way forward lies in statutory regulation of internal party democracy and audited party records, as recommended in electoral-reform deliberations [5], a self-imposed EC deadline for concluding Paragraph 15 inquiries, and reasoned orders recording what organisational evidence was sought — making judicial review meaningful and keeping Article 324 powers within constitutional fairness.