SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1653742595473047552?s=08 [5/4, 06:37] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* Case No.: WP/35566/2016 Case Name: _Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam_ vs. Election Commission of India *Hon’ble Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth* of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was pleased to set aside the Order of the Election Commission of India

by ·

 

[5/4, 06:28] sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1653742595473047552?s=08
[5/4, 06:37] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
Case No.: WP/35566/2016
Case Name: _Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam_ vs. Election Commission of India

*Hon’ble Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth* of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was pleased to set aside the Order of the Election Commission of India and consequently directed the Election Commission of India to accept the name of the Petitioner, _Desiya Deiveega Murpokku Kazhagam,_ and process the application of the Petitioner for registration, subject to the Petitioner furnishing the other requirements/details, within a period of four weeks from the Petitioner’s response and observed as follows:

*Facts of the Case:*

The Petitioner has submitted the Application dated 30.03.2016 for registering the Petitioner for the purpose of contesting elections. The application was rejected on the ground that the name of the Petitioner has a religious connotation and therefore it cannot be allowed.

*Contention of the Petitioner:*

The name, particularly _“Deiveega”_ contains virtues of nobility, devotion and purity that are universal in nature and it has no religious connotation. The word _“Deiveega”_ means, divine/pure/noble.

*Reasoning of the Hon’ble Judge:*

1) There is no statutory sanction for the Order of the 1st Respondent dated 19.05.2014 bearing No.56/2014/PPS-1, wherein it was stated that the Commission has directed that the names of the political parties seeking registration should not have any religious connotation. As per the settled principles of Law, the above said Executive instructions cannot override either the Statutory Provisions or the Rules. In the present case, reference to a religious connotation finds no place in Section 29A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and this cannot merely by issue of an Executive Order or a set of guide lines, impose such restrictions over and above what the statutes prescribe.

2) A word of religious connotation could imply, or mean, any number of words in Tamil, none of which would be capable of precise and perfect translation to English. It has, however, to be set in context and understood, _Noscitur a sociis,_ a facet of the principle _Ejusdem generis,_ which means that a word is understood by the words with which it is associated, or that accompany it.

3) In the present case, applying the above principle, the word _‘Deiveega’_ is juxtaposed with specific words that precede and succeed it. It has thus to be read and understood in the context of those words being, _Desiya, Murpokku_ and _Kazhagam_ and must not be read in isolation.

4) A _Kazhagam_ is an association. The words _Desiya_ and _Murpokku_ connote ‘patriotism’ and ‘progress’, respectively. Thus, the meaning of the word _‘Deiveega’_ seen in the company of the words _Desiya_ and _Murpokku,_ would be ‘divinity’ which is not an overtly religious term. True, one facet of the word _‘Deiveega’_ is ‘Godly’. However, such an interpretation does not sit well in the context of the name of the petitioner, read in full.

You may also like...