NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reserved its order on an interim plea by VK Sasikala-TTV Dhinakaran group of AIADMK for using the 'hat' symbol in the upcoming RK Nagar constituency by-poll. Justice Indermeet Kaur heard arguments on their behalf, and the poll panel and faction of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister E Palaniswami (EPS) and O Panneerselvam (OPS) and said that it would pass an order soon. A notice was also issued to the Election Commission of India, with OPS and EPS seeking their replies to Sasikala and Dhinakaran's please challenging the poll panel's November 23 order allotting the 'two-leaves' symbol to the coalition.
The court has sought response from Madhusdhanan, AIADMK candidate for RK Nagar by-poll, and MLA Semmalai, respondents in the pleas by Sasikala and Dhinakaran. The court said main petition will be heard on February 12. EPS, OPS, and others opposed granting of 'hat' symbol to Sasikala-Dhinakaran group by the court. They said only the Returning Officer (RO) has the power to do so. They stated that if the symbol is not granted to them, then some other free symbol would be granted by the RO. The court, however, appeared to disagree, saying if the 'hat' symbol was not granted to the group, then the other side may “win by default”. “Elections have to be free and fair. You (Panneerselvam and Palaniswami) should not get a vote by default.”
The symbol was given to the group by the EC in March this year, when it had frozen the use of the 'two leaves' symbol to which the group led by Palaniswami and Panneerselvam had also laid claim. They had at that time, been granted the electric pole symbol.
In their plea, Sasikala and Dhinakaran have sought directions in their plea to initiate appropriate proceedings against Madhusudhanan, EPS, OPS, and Semmalai for their acts. They have also sought calling of records and files relating to the dispute over the symbol. The pleas alleged, “The decision-making process of the ECI is contrary to the settled legal principles. The EC has treated fabricated and untested material as genuine which has resulted in the hearing being unfair and consequently contrary to the principle of natural justice and therefore the proceedings and the order are void.”
