### Election Commission lacks power to deregister political parties for alleged constitutional violations by members.

The Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to deregister the Aam Aadmi Party (Respondent No. 3).

The Petitioner further sought a declaration to disqualify Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 from contesting elections to Parliament or State Assemblies.

The petition was primarily based on certain judicial observations made by the Delhi High Court in a separate criminal revision matter (Crl.Rev.P. 134/2026) dated 20.04.2026 regarding the conduct of the private respondents, which the Petitioner argued constituted a violation of the mandatory undertaking of allegiance to the Constitution under Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which governs the registration of political parties and mandates an allegiance to the principles of socialism, secularism, and democracy.

Supreme Court precedent in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare (2002) 5 SCC 685, which established that the ECI acts as a quasi-judicial body during registration but lacks an express power of review or inherent power to deregister a party except in three narrow exceptions: fraud/forgery, amendment of party nomenclature against Section 29A(5), or where a party is declared unlawful by the Central Government.

Section 7(b) and Sections 8-10A of the R.P. Act, which exhaustively define the grounds for "disqualification" from contesting elections.

The Court reasoned that the petition was "highly misconceived" as it ignored the settled legal position that the ECI has no statutory power to deregister a party for violating the terms of Section 29A(5) upon a third-party complaint.

The Court noted that none of the three exceptions carved out in the Indian National Congress (I) case were pleaded: there was no allegation of fraud, no official change in the party’s constitution, and the party had not been declared an "unlawful association" under the UAPA.

Regarding disqualification of individuals, the Court held that the grounds for disqualification are strictly limited to those enumerated in Chapter III (Sections 8 to 10A) of the R.P. Act, none of which were triggered by mere judicial observations in an unrelated criminal revision.

The Court clarified that observations in Crl.Rev.P. 134/2026 were confined to that specific criminal matter and could not be imported to invoke the ECI’s regulatory powers.

The request for disqualifying the individual respondents was rejected as premature and legally baseless under the exhaustive scheme of the R.P. Act.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the ECI cannot initiate deregistration proceedings based on the alleged misconduct of party members or judicial observations.

No order as to costs was made.