IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 27389 of 2026

All India Secular Front and Anr.

Vs.

The Election Commission of India & Ors.

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Samim Ahammed

Mr. Nazimuddin Siddiqui

Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya

Ms. Saloni Bhattacharjee

Md. Nasirul Haque

Mr. Asif Ikbal Baidya

Ms. Reshma Khatun

Ms. Huma Shakil

Ms. Shabnam Mostari

Mr. Enamul Islam

....For the petitioners.

Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prateek Kumar

Mr. Deepak Sharma

….For the respondent no. 1.

2

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sanskriti Agarwal

Ms. Anamika Pandey

….For the respondent no. 2.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya

Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty

….For the respondent no. 3.

Hearing Concluded On : 28.09.2026

Judgment Delivered On : 30.09.2026

Judgment Uploaded On : 30.09.2026

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for direction

upon the respondent authorities to allot the Electoral Symbol

“Envelope” to the petitioners to contest the Nandigram Assembly

Constituency By-Election under the Electoral Symbol “Envelope”.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is a registered unrecognized political party. The

petitioners have contested the general election to the House of the

People held in the year 2024 and general election to the West Bengal

Legislative Assembly, 2026 and in the said elections, the respondent

authorities had allotted the symbol “Envelope” to the petitioners to

contest the said election.

3. The petitioner no. 1 contested the general election to the West Bengal

Legislative Assembly, 2026 with the symbol “Envelope” and the

3

petitioner no. 2 was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly

from the Bhangar Legislative Assembly Constituency.

4. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate,

representing the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 contested

the Legislative Election from 30 seats and secured 14% votes from

those seats. He submits that after completion of general election to the

West Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2026, two members, namely,

Suvendu Adhikari and Humayun Kabir who had been elected from two

different Assembly Constituencies, resigned from their respective seats

resulting in two vacancies, namely, Rejinagar and Nandigram. The

petitioner no. 1 decided to contest the Nandigram Assembly

Constituency through its former candidate and continue its electoral

activities and campaign using the symbol “Envelope”.

5. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the Election Commission of India

notified that a Bye-Election would be held in the abovementioned

constituency along with other constituencies. Following the

announcement of the Bye-Election and acting upon the representation

of the Election Commission, the petitioner no.1 continues his electoral

activities, organizational arrangements and campaign preparations on

the basis of the symbol “Envelope”. The candidate set-up by the

petitioner no. 1 filed a nomination on 17

th

September, 2026 by

contesting the bye-election with the same symbol “Envelope”.

4

6. When the petitioner no. 1 was proceeding on the basis of the symbol

“Envelope”, the Election Commission of India by an impugned order

dated 18

th September, 2026, recognized the political entity described

therein as “Democratic Trinamool Congress” and allotted the electoral

symbol “Envelope” to the said party, the respondent no. 3 herein. Mr.

Bhattacharyya submits that the Election Commission of India without

any prior notice and without any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner no. 1 and without communicating to it any decision whereby

the earlier allotment communicated by the Memorandum dated 10

th

March, 2026, had been withdrawn, cancelled or modified.

7. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the impugned order dated 18

th

September, 2026 with regard to allotment of symbol “Envelope” to the

respondent no. 3 is without considering the petitioner no. 1’s previous

electoral use of the symbol and the specific confirmation dated 10

th

March, 2026. The petitioner no. 1 has submitted an objection to the

Election Commission of India on 18

th September, 2026 by bringing to

its notice the earlier application, the previous allotment and use of

“Envelope”, and the express confirmation dated 10

th

March, 2026, but

the respondent authorities have not considered the representation of

the petitioners.

8. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the action of the respondent

authorities by allotting the symbol “Envelope” to the respondent no. 3

creating a serious scope for confusion amongst the electors as to the

identity of the candidate and the political party with which the symbol

5

“Envelope” had previously been associated and had been used by the

candidates of the petitioner no. 1. He submits that the petitioner no. 1

has arranged its electoral and campaign activities on the basis of the

representation made by the competent constitutional authority through

its Memorandum dated 10

th March, 2026 and subsequent departure

from that position without any notice or any opportunity of hearing to

the petitioners, the petitioners have lost its legitimate expectation.

9. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the

respondent no. 2 submits that on 23

rd

February, 2026, the petitioners

had applied for the symbol “Envelope” to contest the West Bengal

Legislative Assembly Election, 2026, and accordingly the symbol

“Envelope” was allotted to the petitioners by an order dated 10

th March,

2026.

10. Mr. Chowdhury submits that the Election Commission of India has

issued a notification for bye-election of Rejinagar and Nandigram

Assembly Constituencies on 6

th

October, 2026. As per Schedule of

Bye-Election, the last date for making nominations was 16

th

September,

2026, date of scrutiny of nominations was on 17

th

September, 2026

and the last date of withdrawal of the candidatures was 19

th

September, 2026. He submits that there was a dispute before the

Election Commission of India in relation to the election symbols of All

India Trinamool Congress (hereinafter referred to as “AITC”) and

accordingly, by an order dated 18

th September, 2026, the Election

Commission of India has not permitted the use of symbol “Flowers and

6

Grass” reserved for AITC and allotted the symbol “Envelope” to the

Democratic Trinamool Congress and “Football Player” to “Mamata All

India Trinamool Congress”.

11. Mr. Chowdhury submits that the petitioner no. 1 is an unrecognized

political party and the petitioner no. 1 has contested two elections with

the symbol “Envelope” which was the free symbol (not allotted to any

other party) and after the election is over, the petitioners cannot claim

any right over the said symbol.

12. Mr. Chowdhury submits that paragraph 10-B of the Political Parties

and Election Symbols 2026, explicitly provides concession to registered

unrecognized political party only at a general election to the Legislative

Assembly of a State or the House of the People may be allotted a

common symbol subject to fulfillment of the conditions. He submits

that para 10-B does not provide for common symbol reservation for

bye-election. He submits that allotment of the free symbol to the

candidates in bye-elections is governed by para 12 of the symbol orders

and the rules of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, determined by

the officer at the time of symbol after the stage of withdrawal of the

candidatures.

13. Mr. Chowdhury submits that in the bye-election, the allotment of free

symbol is governed exclusively in para 12 of the symbol orders. The

symbol “Envelope” is a free symbol out of 184 symbols and is not a

reserved symbol. The petitioners cannot claim the said symbol as its

7

right over the same as the symbols are not property. In support of his

submission, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of

Subramaniyan Swamy vs. Election Commission of India reported

in (2008) 14 SCC 318.

14. Mr. Chowdhury submits that the petitioners have used the symbol of

“Envelope” in the 2024 Lok Sabha General Election and 2026 West

Bengal Legislative Assembly Election is irrelevant for the bye-election.

He submits that in the Memorandum dated 10

th

March, 2026, it is

categorically mentioned that further use of common symbol by the

respective party(s) is not allowed after the completion of the said

election.

15. Mr. Chowdhury submits that the Election Commission of India

exercised its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India

issued an order dated 18

th September, 2026 by allotting new names

and available free symbols to the All India Trinamool Congress faction

to save their candidates from summary rejection at scrutiny on the very

same day. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the

judgment in the case of Samata Party Through Shri Uday Mandal

its President Vs. Election Commission of India and Others in W.P.

(C) 14830 of 2022 passed by the Delhi High Court and submits that

the Election Commission of India possess explicit authority under the

Symbol Order to declare the erstwhile reserved symbol as free symbol

and allocate it to meet the exigencies of an election dispute.

8

16. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the

respondent no.1 submits that in Para 10B of the Symbol Order deals

with the concession of granting a common symbol to an unrecognized

political party and is limited to General Election and it has no

application beyond the General Election. The petitioners would have a

right to apply for the same concession only when the next General

Election are announced or become due and has no right to use the

symbol for the purpose of the current bye-election for which it is was a

free symbol.

17. Mr. Naidu submits that there is no provision for automatic

continuation of the concession to use the common symbol for all

elections to come including by elections. He submits that the petitioner

is seeking a status akin to a status of a recognized political party which

is granted a reserved symbol under para 8 of the Symbols Orders.

18. Mr. Naidu submits that on completion of West Bengal Legislative

Assembly Election, the concession for that electoral event stood

exhausted. Filing a nomination under the exhausted symbol “Envelope”

cannot revive it or create an independent right of the symbol. He

submits that in the order dated 10

th

March, 2026, it is clearly and

categorically mentioned that the concessional allotment of common

symbol is limited only for the forthcoming General Elections to the

Legislative Assemblies or the Lok Sabha and further use of common

symbol by the respective parties is not allowed. The order further

9

prescribed that the said symbol shall remain free symbol for the

constituencies where the petitioner does not file a candidate form.

19. Mr. Naidu submits that the petitioners have not submitted any

application for the use of the symbol “Envelope” in the current bye-

election. The petitioners have filed representation on 18

th September,

2026, after the nomination of its candidate was accepted and free

symbol was allotted to a recognized party.

20. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Learned Advocate, representing the

respondent no.3 submits that the respondent no.3 is the recognized

political party in the State of West Bengal and the Election Commission

of India by an order dated 18

th

September, 2026, allotted the symbol of

“Envelope” to the respondent no.3.

21. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that after recognize the respondent no.3 as

recognized political party, the Election Commission of India finds that

the Symbol “Envelope” which was free symbol was allotted to the

respondent no. 3. He relied upon para 5 of the Symbol Order, 2026 and

submits that once the free symbol is allotted to the recognized political

party by the Election Commission of India, the petitioners cannot claim

the same as right over the said symbol, admittedly, the petitioner no. 1

is an unrecognized political party.

22. The petitioner no.1 has contested two elections that is General Election

to the House of the People held in the year 2024 and General Election

to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly 2026 with the symbol

10

“Envelope”. By an order dated 10

th March, 2026, symbol “Envelope” as

allotted to the petitioners by the Election Commission of India. At

paragraph 4 of the said order, it is clearly informed to the petitioners

that “the common symbol allotted to the respective party(s) is only for the

forthcoming General Election to the Legislative Assembles or Lok Shaba

as mentioned in table above. Further the use of common symbol by the

respective party(s) is not allowed after the completion of the said

election”.

The petitioners have accepted the order dated 10

th

March, 2026

and contested the West Bengal Legislative Assembly 2026 with the said

symbol.

23. The petitioners claiming Symbol “Envelope” on the basis of the order

dated 10

th March, 2026, on the pretext that the present election is bye-

election of the same constituencies in which the petitioners had

contested the election with the same symbol. Section 150 of the

Representation of People Act, 1951, provides for casual vacancies in the

State Legislative Assemblies. Two members who have been elected from

the two different Assembly Constituencies resigned from their

respective seats. The Election Commission of India announced the Bye-

Election on 7

th

September, 2026 and Schedule of the Election was

issued on 9

th

September, 2026.

24. Para 10B of the Symbol Order deals with concession of granting

common symbol to an unrecognized political party to the House of the

11

People. Explanation (i) of the Para 10B provides that “The concession of

allotment of common symbol to the candidates of a registered

unrecognized party under this paragraph shall be available to a party at

any two general elections to the House of the People, or any two general

elections to a State Legislative Assembly or at one general election to the

House of People and the other at a general election to a State Legislative

Assembly, as the party may choose.”

25. Explanation (ii) of Para 10B of the Symbol Order provides that “A party

that has availed of this concession on two occasions shall, however, be

eligible for the concession in any subsequent general election subject to

the condition that at least on anyone of the previous two occasions when

the party availed of the facility, the votes polled by all the contesting

candidates set up by the party at the general election in the State

concerned was not less than one percent of the total valid votes polled in

that State.”

26. The above two provisions speaks about only general election to the

State Legislative Assembly and General Election to the House of People

and not with respect to Bye-Election. In the writ petition, the

petitioners have not disclosed any request of the petitioners for

allotment of symbol “Envelope” prior to 18

th

September, 2026. The

petitioners are claiming symbol “Envelope” on the basis of the order

dated 10

th March, 2026.

12

27. The General Election to a State Legislative Assembly is provided under

Section 15 in Part III of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Bye

Elections are governed under Section 150 of Part IX of the Act of 1951.

The Election Commission of India after the vacancies arose, has

declared bye-election. In the order dated 10

th March, 2026, it was

clarified that further use of common symbol by the respective party (s)

is not allowed after the completion of the said election.

28. Classification of symbols and Classification of political parties provided

in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Symbol Order which reads as follows:

“5. Classification of symbols – (1) For the

purpose of this Order symbols are either reserved

or free.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Order, a

reserved symbol is a symbol which is reserved for

a recognized political party for exclusive allotment

to contesting candidates set up by that party.

(3) A free symbol is a symbol other than a

reserved symbol.

6. Classification of political parties- (1)

For the purpose of this Order and for such other

purposes as the Commission may specify as and

when necessity therefore arises, political parties

are either recognized political parties or

unrecognized political parties.

(2) A recognized political party shall either

be a National party or a State party.”

29. A dispute came up before the Election Commission of India in relation

to the “All India Trinamool Congress” with respect to use of name of the

Political party. The Commission has not allowed either of the two

groups to use the name of the party “All India Trinamool Congress” or

13

its symbol “Flowers and Grass” reserved for the “All India Trinamool

Congress”. The Commission has allotted “Democratic Trinamool

Congress” name for one group led by Shri Arup Roy with the symbol

“Envelope” and treated as a recognized political party in the State of

West Bengal, Meghalaya and Tripura. The group led by Ms. Mamata

Banerjee is allotted the name “Mamata All India Trinmool Congress”

with the symbol “Football Player” and treated as a recognized political

party of the State of West Bengal, Meghalaya and Tripura.

30. The order dated 18

th

September, 2026, was challenged before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1213 of 2026 and

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not upset the order passed by the

Commission and the proceeding is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court for adjudication.

31. In the case of Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam vs. Election

Commission of India reported in (2012) 7 SCC 340 , the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that no political party is entitled to allotment or

use of an election symbol permanently and that a registered

unrecognized party has not vested right to exclusive allotment of a

common symbol at every subsequent election.

32. In the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Election Commission of

India reported in (2008) 14 SCC 318, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that:

14

“31. That leaves us with the last argument

that the symbol amounts to a property and,

therefore, a political party cannot be deprived of its

property. The argument must be rejected at the

outset as the symbol can never have even the

traces of the concept of a property.

32. It may be that a recognised political party

would have a right of exclusive use of the symbol

but the Symbols Order makes it very clear that

such right to use the symbol can be lost with the

dismal performance of the party.

34. A symbol is not a tangible thing nor does

it generate any wealth, it is only the insignia which

is associated with the particular political party so

as to help the millions of illiterate voters to properly

exercise their right to franchise in favour of the

candidate of their choice belonging to a particular

party. In the election process it is not merely the

individual candidate's personality or his identity

that weighs with the voters. It is undoubtedly a

very relevant factor but along with it the voter also

can and does vote in favour of the party. It is under

such circumstances that the symbol becomes

relevant and important. However, all that it

provides for is the essential association that it has

with a particular party. The party concerned would

have a legal right to exclusively use the same but

that is not, in our considered opinion, a property of

the party and, therefore, the Election Commission

which is required to ensure free, fair and clean

elections have every right to deprive a particular

party with a dismal performance of that symbol.

The Election Commission puts a clamp on the right

of such a political party to use the symbol

rightfully. We are, therefore, not in a position to

accept the argument that symbol is a property of a

party and, therefore, such property cannot be taken

away from that political party. The symbol may be

an outcome of intellectual exercise but it does not

become an “intellectual property” which concept

has monetary implications. In case of a political

party as contemplated in the Symbols Order,

monetary angle is conspicuously absent.”

15

33. The petitioners are claiming symbol of “Envelope” on the basis of the

order dated 10

th March, 2026. The order dated 10

th March, 2026,

clarified that use of common symbol by the respective party(s) is not

allowed after the completion of the said election. The election for which

the symbol “Envelope” was allotted to the petitioners was completed on

declaration of result of the said election in the month of May, 2026. The

petitioners have not disclosed any document in the present writ petition

that the petitioners have applied the symbol “Envelope” for this bye-

election. Now the commission by an order dated 18

th

September, 2026,

allowed the symbol “Envelope” to the Democratic Trinamool Congress.

The said order is also under challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

34. This Court finds that the symbol “Envelope” was allotted to the

petitioners to contest the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Election,

2026 which is completed in the month of May, 2026 and thus the

petitioners cannot claim any right over the said symbol for the bye-

election as the allotment of symbol for the said election was the

conditional one.

35. Considering the above, this Court did not find any merit in the writ

petition. Accordingly, WPA No. 27839 of 2026 is dismissed.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

16

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)