Locus Standi under Paragraph 16 of Election Symbols Order is Restricted to Members of Merging Parties

The Petitioner, a former member of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), was expelled from the party in 2004

He challenged this expulsion in a civil suit (CS No. 284/2006) before the High Court of Madras, which remains pending without any interim relief in his favor

In 2011, the National Executive of IUML passed a resolution to merge the Muslim League Kerala State Committee (MLKSC) with IUML, which the Election Commission of India (ECI) approved on March 3, 2012

The Petitioner filed various representations and prior litigations challenging this merger

On April 20, 2024, the ECI rejected the Petitioner's representation against the merger on the grounds that he lacked locus standi as he was no longer a member of the party

The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside the ECI’s rejection and the 2012 merger order

Whether an expelled member of a political party has the locus standi to challenge a merger order under Paragraph 16 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968

The Court interpreted Paragraph 16 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which grants the ECI the power to acknowledge mergers and hear "such other persons as desire to be heard"

The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis, holding that general words following specific ones must be confined to the same class as the specific words

It relied on Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal (2010) 3 SCC 786 to justify this statutory interpretation

The Petitioner argued that the phrase "any other persons as desire to be heard" in Paragraph 16 of the Election Symbols Order provided him with the standing to contest the merger

However, the Court rejected this broad interpretation, noting that under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the phrase must be restricted to representatives or members of the merging parties

A wider interpretation would allow "busybodies" with no connection to the parties to obstruct ECI proceedings

Regarding the Petitioner’s status, the Court found that he had been expelled in 2004 and was specifically restrained by a Civil Court from claiming any affiliation with or using the name of the IUML

Consequently, since his membership was not subsisting and no interim judicial protection existed, he could not be considered a person within the class of individuals entitled to a hearing regarding the party's internal merger

Finding no infirmity in the ECI's order dated April 20, 2024, the High Court dismissed the writ petition

The Court clarified that it did not examine the merits of the 2012 merger order, as the petition failed on the threshold of standing