Supreme Court orders Ladakh administration to notify LAHDC polls afresh; allots plough symbol to National Conference

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the ongoing election process for the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) and ordered the administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh to issue a fresh notification for the polls within seven days. [Union Territory of Ladakh and ors v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and anr].A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also held that the National Conference (NC) was entitled to use the plough symbol for the polls."The entire election process, initiated pursuant to Notification dated 02.08.2023 issued by the Administration of Union Territory of Ladakh ... stands set aside. A fresh Notification shall be issued within seven days from today for elections to constitute the 5th Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil. R1 [NC party] is declared entitled to the exclusive allotment of the Plough symbol for candidates proposed to be put up by it. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed", the Court said in its order..Pertinently, the bench imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the Ladakh administration and asked it to deposit the same with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund, within two weeks. The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Union Territory (UT) of Ladakh against an August 9 order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh..The High Court had ordered the Ladakh administration to notify the allotment of the 'plough' symbol to the National Conference party for the purpose of the LAHDC elections.The National Conference party had claimed that the authorities were not notifying the allotment of the plough symbol to the LAHDC elections in Ladakh, even though the symbol was earlier reserved in the party's favour.Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) TM Shamsi had contended before the High Court that the National Conference was not a recognised State Political Party in the Union Territory of Ladakh. The reservation of the plough symbol in the party's favour was only with respect to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, he had contended.The High Court, however, proceeded to allow the National Conference to approach the authorities again in the matter, so that the allotment of the plough symbol in its favour may be notified for the purpose of the LAHDC elections.Before the Supreme Court, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Ladakh administration, reiterated the government's stance that the National Conference was not a national party to be automatically eligible for the allotment of this symbol..The top court at the outset noted that the contention by the Ladakh administration that it can take an independent stand in the symbol allotment matter was different from what they had argued before the High Court.The Court criticised the UT authorities for delaying the process of allotment of the symbol despite the High Court's orders in this regard."Elections to any office/body are required to be free, fair and transparent. Elections lie at the core of democracy. The authority entrusted by law to hold/conduct such elections is to be completely independent of any extraneous influence/consideration. It is surprising that the Union Territory of Ladakh not only denied R1 the Plough symbol, but even upon timely intervention by the learned Single Judge, has left no stone unturned not only to resist but also frustrate a cause simply by efflux of time."The bench noted that a representation by the party ahead of the polls had gone unheeded."This Court notes, with concern, that the Appellants, while sitting on the representation of R1, went ahead and notified the elections on 02/05.08.2023. We are unable to appreciate such conduct. This recalcitrance to decide in time speaks volumes. Instances like these raise serious questions."It noted that the NC's request to be allotted the plough symbol was just, legitimate and and bonafide. Further, there was no conflict with any other party with regard to the symbol."Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and the creation of two new Union Territories, namely the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh, though the ECI had not notified R1 as a State Party for the Union Territory of Ladakh, it cannot be simpliciter that R1 was not entitled for the allotment of plough symbol to it, in the factual background. What is also clear is that the Appellants are attempting to approbate and reprobate, which this Court will not countenance"..The apex court rejected outright the contention that it should not interfere with the poll process at this stage. It explained that it has powers to restore status quo ante by turning the clock if dire measures call for it."The Court would categorically emphasize that no litigant should have even an iota of doubt or an impression (rather, a misimpression) that just because of systemic delay or the matter not being taken up by the Courts resulting in efflux of time the cause would be defeated, and the Court would be rendered helpless to ensure justice to the party concerned," the judgment said.It underscored that the High Court had no bar, even on principle, in issuing the directions.Before parting, the bench flagged the fact that authorities were interfering in election processes arbitrarily in the hope that courts will not interfere. "This case constrains the Court to take note of the broader aspect of the lurking danger of authorities concerned using their powers relating to elections arbitrarily and thereafter, being complacent, rather over-confident, that the Courts would not interfere. The misconceived notion being that in the ultimate eventuate, after elections are over, when such decisions/actions are challenged, by sheer passage of time, irreversible consequences would have occurred, and no substantive relief could be fashioned is just that – misconceived." Such conduct compelled the top court to rethink whether self-imposed restrictions on meddling in elections need a more liberal interpretation to ensure justice in some cases, it was observed."With a sense of anguish, it would not be wrong to say that the instant judgment has been invited upon themselves by the Appellants. The orders of the High Court, in our considered opinion, were in aid of the electoral process, and no fault can be found therewith.".[Read Judgment]