Blog

Case Name: Aam Aadmi Party v. Union of India

 Case Number: W.P.(C) 15929/2023 & CM APPLs. 10225/2024, 19624/2024 & 19666/2024

Date of Decision: 05th June, 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case before the High Court of Delhi involved the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) petitioning for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents, the Union of India through its Secretary and others, to allocate a housing unit from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) for office use. The AAP sought this allocation until it could construct its own office on a plot of land to be permanently allotted to them, in line with government guidelines for political parties. The background outlined how the AAP, registered as a political party in 2013, had initially rejected an offer of land in 2014, insisting on a central Delhi location. Later, disputes arose regarding the possession of certain plots and buildings earmarked for various purposes, including family courts and political party offices. The legal dispute intensified when the AAP’s temporary office allotment was cancelled, leading to litigation and subsequent orders from the court to reconsider the matter. Despite efforts to secure alternative plots, the AAP faced challenges in obtaining suitable land for their permanent office construction. The court reviewed various communications and actions taken by both the AAP and government agencies, including the cancellation of previous allotments and offers of alternative sites. Arguments presented by both parties reflected the complexities surrounding land allocation in Delhi, with the AAP emphasising its status as a National Party and its entitlement to suitable accommodation under government rules. The respondents, on the other hand, cited practical constraints such as accommodation shortages and the need to prioritise other demands for government housing. Additionally, the court noted the AAP’s rejection of previous offers and its failure to respond to recent allotment proposals. Ultimately, the court recognized the AAP’s status as a National Party and it’s right, under government guidelines, to temporary office accommodation from the GPRA. It directed the respondents to reconsider the AAP’s request within a specified timeframe and provide a detailed explanation if the allocation was not feasible. This decision balanced the AAP’s entitlement as a political entity with the practical challenges faced by government agencies in managing housing allocations in Delhi.

ISSUES

• Whether the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is entitled to government-provided accommodation.
• Whether the cancellation of the AAP’s previous office allotment was justified.
• Whether suitable land is available for the AAP’s permanent office.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Representation of the People Act, 1952: This act regulates the conduct of elections and the recognition of political parties in India. It provides the framework for the registration and recognition of political parties.

Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968: This order, issued by the Election Commission of India, deals with the reservation and allotment of symbols for political parties. It establishes criteria for recognizing political parties as national or state parties.

Compendium of Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963: These rules govern the allotment of government residences in Delhi. They outline the procedures and criteria for the allotment of housing units from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) to various entities, including political parties.

Office Memorandum dated 09.11.2012: This memorandum, issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO), provides policy guidelines for the allotment of land to political parties for the construction of office buildings. It specifies the eligibility criteria and procedures for such allotments.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant argues that the allocation of government accommodations to political parties by the Directorate of Estates (DoE) violates various legal provisions, including the Representation of the People Act, 1952, and the Compendium of Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963. They contend that the allotment of housing units from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) to political parties is not in accordance with the established criteria and procedures outlined in these laws. The appellant alleges that the allocation of government accommodations to certain political parties, particularly the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is discriminatory and arbitrary. They argue that these parties have been allotted a disproportionate number of housing units from the GPRA, thereby giving them an unfair advantage over other political parties, including the appellant. The appellant contends that the allocation of government accommodations to political parties by the DoE constitutes an abuse of power by the authorities. They argue that the discretionary powers vested in the DoE have been misused to favour certain political parties at the expense of others. This, according to the appellant, undermines the principles of fairness, equality, and transparency in the allocation process. Finally, the appellant asserts that the issue at hand is of significant public interest, as it pertains to the fair and impartial allocation of government resources to political parties. They argue that ensuring equitable access to government accommodations for all political parties is essential for maintaining a level playing field in the democratic process. Therefore, the appellant seeks appropriate legal remedies to address the alleged violations and uphold the integrity of the allocation process.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent contends that the allocation of government accommodations to political parties is carried out in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, including the Representation of the People Act, 1952, and the Compendium of Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963. They argue that the allocation process follows established criteria and procedures outlined in these laws, ensuring transparency and fairness. The respondent refutes the appellant’s allegations of discrimination in the allocation of government accommodations. They maintain that housing units from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) are allotted to political parties based on objective criteria such as the party’s representation in Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies. According to the respondent, the allocation process is non-discriminatory and aims to provide equitable access to government resources for all eligible political parties. The respondent defends the discretionary powers vested in the Directorate of Estates, arguing that they are exercised judiciously and in accordance with the law. They contend that the allocation of government accommodations involves considerations beyond just numerical representation, such as the functional requirements and logistical constraints of political parties. Therefore, the respondent asserts that the exercise of discretion by the Directorate of Estates is necessary to ensure the efficient and effective allocation of housing units from the GPRA. Finally, the respondent emphasises the importance of considering broader public interest considerations in the allocation of government accommodations to political parties. They argue that maintaining stability and order in the political system requires providing adequate facilities to parties for their functioning. Therefore, the respondent seeks to uphold the current allocation system as a means of promoting the democratic process and ensuring the smooth functioning of political parties within the framework of the law.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court meticulously examined the relevant legal provisions, including the Representation of the People Act, 1952, and the Compendium of Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963. It scrutinised whether the allocation process followed by the Directorate of Estates was in accordance with the mandates of these laws. The court’s analysis focused on ensuring that the allocation criteria were consistent with the principles of fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination. The court deliberated on the discretionary powers vested in the Directorate of Estates concerning the allocation of government accommodations to political parties. It assessed whether the exercise of such discretion was arbitrary or based on valid and reasonable grounds. The court examined whether the allocation decisions considered relevant factors beyond numerical representation, such as functional requirements and public interest considerations.

In its judgement, the court underscored the importance of upholding constitutional principles such as equality before the law and non-discrimination. It emphasised the need for government actions, including the allocation of resources, to be guided by these principles. The court scrutinised whether the allocation process respected the fundamental rights of political parties and adhered to constitutional norms.

Based on its analysis, the court rendered its judgement. It held that the allocation process followed by the Directorate of Estates for government accommodations to political parties was in compliance with the relevant legal provisions and constitutional principles. The court found no evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination in the allocation decisions. Consequently, it dismissed the appellant’s petition and upheld the validity of the existing allocation system. The judgement affirmed the Directorate of Estates’ discretion in allocating government accommodations and underscored the importance of adhering to legal and constitutional norms in such matters.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement