No Instance Of Misuse Shown: Madras High Court Rejects Plea Against Allotment Of Party Symbols To Other Parties' Candidates In Poll Alliances

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea filed by ML Ravi, President of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK) party, seeking to prevent the issuance of Form A and Form B to candidates belonging to other political parties.

Form A is a communication from a political party to the returning officer of the constituency informing the names of office bearers of the party who have been authorised to intimate the names of candidates chosen by the party to contest the elections.

Form B is a communication from the authorised office bearers of the party to the returning officer of the constituency, informing the officer about the name of the authorised candidate who may be allotted the party symbol. Form B certifies that the candidate is a member of the political party and his name appears in the party's rolls. 

The court noted that no material had been placed to show that symbols belonging to one political party had been assigned to persons belonging to another political party. It said the plea sought for a general prayer, which the court was not inclined to grant. The court also noted that a similar petition filed by Ravi had already been dismissed by the court previously.

“How can this petition be entertained? Without showing any instance, without specifying the law. We will have to impose costs now. A similar petition was already dismissed and now you have filed this knowing it will be res judicata,” the court orally remarked.

The court added that cause of action in such cases would arise only when it was shown that Form B was issued by a political party in violation of the law. The court was thus not inclined to entertain the plea and considered imposing a cost of Rs 10,000 on the litigant.

In his plea, Ravi submitted that during elections in Tamil Nadu, it was common for recognised political parties to enter into electoral alliances with various registered, recognised and unrecognised political parties. He added that as part of such alliances, candidates belonging to one political party were often permitted to contest elections using the reserved symbol of another political party.

Ravi submitted that in such cases, the parties used to issue Form A and Form B certifying that the candidate belonged to that political party and his name was duly borne on the rolls of members of the party. Ravi pointed out that this created a serious legal inconsistency as members belonging to one political party was declared as a member of another recognised party.

Ravi argued that such declaration was inconsistent with the affidavit filed under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, and the returning officer as well as the electorate are misled regarding the true political affiliation of the candidate. He submitted that such practice was also violative of Sections 33A and 33B of the RP Act, as per which, the candidate was required to disclose true and correct information to ensure right of voters to information.

Ravi pointed out that after declaration of the results, many times, the candidates started functioning as members of their original political party rather than as members of the party under whose symbol they contested the election. It was submitted that this practice amounted to misrepresentation and deception of the electorate and directly affected the transparency of the electoral process and integrity of the democratic institution.

Ravi had also sought an interim direction to the Chief Electoral Officer to issue circular to all returning officers to ensure that only candidates who were Bonafide members of the political party were permitted to submit Form B for allotment of the party symbol.

Case Title: ML Ravi v. Chief Election Commissioner and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 151

Case No: WP 12746 of 2026