On Friday, the Supreme Court reserved judgment on the plea by the Union Territory of Ladakh opposing the assignment of the 'plough' emblem to the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC) for the forthcoming elections of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) in the Kargil region. The Ladakh Administration submitted a special leave petition challenging the directive issued by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh to designate the 'plough' symbol for JKNC.

The panel, composed of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, announced that the verdict would be pronounced on September 6, closely preceding the scheduled elections on September 10. JKNC asserts that the 'plough' symbol is rightfully reserved for them since the Election Commission of India recognized them as a State Party in Jammu and Kashmir.

The bench probed the Administration on why the 'plough' symbol wasn't incorporated into the list of available symbols. Justice Vikram Nath, addressing Additional Solicitor General of India KM Nataraj, inquired, "Why was it omitted, Mr. Natraj? Was the exclusion of the 'plough' symbol intentional, malicious, or in accordance with the law?"

Referring to Rule 18 of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (Election) Regulations, ASG Nataraj argued that JKNC lacks recognition as a national or state party in the Ladakh region. According to these regulations, only acknowledged parties are eligible for reserved symbols.

In response to the bench's query about any party notification for Ladakh, ASG answered negatively.

ASG additionally contended that the High Court's reliance on the Election (Symbols) Order 1968 was flawed as it didn't apply to Jammu and Kashmir. Justice Vikram Nath, seemingly skeptical, responded, "Once there's no Jammu and Kashmir state, it should rightly apply. There's no Jammu and Kashmir state today. Is there any amendment stating it doesn't apply to the UT?"

ASG clarified, "This solely applies to Parliamentary elections. It doesn't apply to local body elections. Furthermore, the HC issued directions under paragraphs 10 and 10-A of the Election Symbols Order, 1968. Yet, candidates didn't opt for the symbol."

Justice Nath inquired, "How could they opt when the symbol wasn't notified?"

ASG replied, "It couldn't have been notified. The interpretation carries significant implications nationwide."

ASG argued that candidates had declared themselves as independent and submitted forms accordingly. He asserted that no relief could be granted at this stage, especially since the election process was already underway, with the nomination deadline on August 23 and the withdrawal deadline on August 26.

The counsel representing JKNC argued that the administration had only notified symbols for national parties. He explained that there are two categories of symbols: reserved symbols and free symbols. Only individuals not nominated by national or state parties can contest using a free symbol. The counsel strongly contended that a recognized party can't participate with a free symbol, a situation unprecedented in electoral history.

He vehemently stated, "The level playing field was disrupted. I am an incumbent party. How can I participate in the polls without my symbol? National symbols were notified, but they weren't allocated to the ruling party."

He continued, "Previously, I held the status of a recognized state party before the bifurcation. In 2019, I obtained the necessary vote count. The rights vested in me were safeguarded by the 'removal of difficulties' order. My symbol was preserved."

The counsel for JKNC further questioned how the administration could have grievances about allotting the reserved symbol to the party.

Nonetheless, the bench pointed out that the UT can only assign symbols in accordance with the LAHDC Election Rules. The counsel for the party countered that the Election Symbols Order was applicable.

"This isn't an assembly or parliamentary election," noted Justice Vikram Nath, to which the counsel responded that the administration adheres to the symbols designated by the Election Commission.

Case title: UT of Ladakh v. J&K National Conference

Click here to read last order