Unrecognised party cannot claim “Envelope” symbol for Nandigram bypoll, Calcutta High Court rules

Petitioner No. 1, a registered unrecognised political party, had contested the 2024 Lok Sabha election and the 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election using the symbol “Envelope.”

The Election Commission’s order dated 10 March 2026 allotted that common symbol for the relevant general election and stated that its use would not continue after that election.

Following vacancies in the Nandigram and Rejinagar constituencies, the Commission announced by-elections. On 18 September 2026, it allotted “Envelope” to respondent No. 3, Democratic Trinamool Congress, following a dispute concerning the All India Trinamool Congress and its symbol.

The petitioners challenged that allotment, asserting prior use, legitimate expectation, and lack of notice or hearing; they sought allotment of “Envelope” for the Nandigram by-election.

Whether the petitioners’ earlier allotment and use of “Envelope” for a general election entitled them to use the symbol in the Nandigram by-election.

Whether the petitioners’ prior use of the symbol or the alleged absence of notice and hearing prevented the Commission from allotting “Envelope” to respondent No. 3 for the by-election.

Under paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Election Symbols Order, symbols are classified as reserved or free, and political parties as recognised or unrecognised.

Paragraph 10B provides a concession for allotment of a common symbol to a registered unrecognised party at specified general elections; the Court read its explanations as applying to general elections, not by-elections.

Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 concerns general elections to State Legislative Assemblies, while Section 150 concerns casual vacancies and by-elections.

The Court relied on Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam v. Election Commission of India, (2012) 7 SCC 340, for the rule that a registered unrecognised party has no vested right to exclusive use of a common symbol at every subsequent election.

The Court relied on Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India, (2008) 14 SCC 318, for the principle that an election symbol is not property.

The Court held that the 10 March 2026 allotment was expressly limited to the forthcoming general election and prohibited further use of the common symbol after that election concluded.

Because the petitioners’ general-election use had ended and paragraph 10B did not extend the concession to by-elections, that earlier allotment created no continuing entitlement to “Envelope” for the Nandigram by-election.

The petitioners had also not disclosed an application for the symbol before the Commission’s 18 September order.

The Court therefore found no basis for the petitioners to claim the symbol against its subsequent allotment to respondent No. 3.

It did not separately elaborate on the petitioners’ procedural-fairness or legitimate-expectation arguments.

The Court dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.

The judgment’s caption identifies the matter as WPA No. 27389 of 2026, although the concluding dismissal sentence refers to WPA No. 27839 of 2026.