In a setback to former Telangana MLC Kalvakuntla Kavitha, the Delhi high court on Tuesday refused to give any direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to allot the name "Telangana Rakshana Samithi" (TRS) to her proposed political party.
In her petition, Kavitha stated that the Election Commission had issued a letter on June 23 raising objections to the proposed party name.
She contended that while the Commission had asked her to suggest alternative names, it had also directed that none of the proposed names should abbreviate to "TRS," effectively ruling out her preferred choice.
Hearing the matter, the Delhi high court observed that Kavitha should first submit a comprehensive response to the Election Commission's notices before seeking judicial intervention.
The court remarked that entertaining the petition at this stage would amount to interfering with the statutory functions of the Election Commission.
The Election Commission had earlier issued notices on May 12 and June 23 stating that the proposed name "Telangana Rakshana Samithi" could not be approved.
Although the Commission had granted Kavitha an opportunity to submit her explanation within a week, she approached the high court without responding to the notices.
The high court asked the Election Commission to consider Kavitha's response within a week and provide her an opportunity for a personal hearing before taking a final decision on the party's registration and name.
During the proceedings, counsel representing the Election Commission informed the court that two political parties with names similar to "TRS" had already been registered, making it impermissible under election rules to allot another similar name.
The Commission also submitted that it had received more than 1,000 objections to the proposed name and pointed out that, in similar cases, applicants had not been granted personal hearings.
The ECI maintained that it had already informed Kavitha that allotment of the proposed name was not legally feasible.
Kavitha's counsel, however, argued that the Election Commission should not take an adverse decision without first giving her an opportunity to present her case.
The lawyer requested the court to direct the Commission to allot the proposed name and ensure procedural fairness in the registration process.
Taking note of the submissions from both sides, the Delhi high court directed the Election Commission to hear Kavitha's objections, grant her a personal hearing after she files her response within a week, and thereafter take a final decision in accordance with law.
