M/S Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India & Anr.

15. Responding to the present writ petition, learned counsel for the ECI, at the outset, reiterates the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the ECI, as such, has no jurisdiction to decide internal disputes within any unrecognised political party.

16. He submits that the purport of ECI‟s letter dated 27th November, 2025 was only to convey that in view of the record maintained by the ECI, which was based upon earlier communication received by the ECI under Section 29A(9) of the RP Act, Dr. R. Anbumani was the President of the petitioner party. He further submits that even though such information is received by the ECI in terms of Section 29A(9) of the RP Act, mere receipt of any such information by the ECI under said Section, does not accord any right to the political party/faction, as claimed in their communication to the ECI.

17. Learned counsel for ECI submits that the ECI does not go into any fact-finding inquiry as regards the veracity of the information which is provided to the ECI, i.e., verifying whether the same is correct or not. He further reiterates that the ECI does not have the jurisdiction to decide any internal disputes of an unrecognized political party.

18. It is submitted that in view of the various communications, as received on behalf of Dr. S. Ramadoss, claiming himself to be the President of the petitioner party, the ECI, as of today, does not recognize either Dr. R. Anbumani or Dr. S. Ramadoss as the President of the petitioner party, as determining the same would be the subject matter of a civil dispute, to be decided by the Court having competent jurisdiction.

19. Learned counsel for the ECI also relies upon a letter dated 04th December, 2023 received from the petitioner party, wherein, the term of Dr.

2026. The said letter dated 04th December, 2023, is reproduced as under:

20. He also draws the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Madras High Court in Pattali Makkal Katchi Versus Dr. R. Anbumani and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 4758, to submit that the petitioner herein has already been directed to approach the Civil Court with regard to any dispute pending between the parties.

21. Though the rival faction through its purported general secretary is not a party before this Court, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, has put in appearance on his behalf. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal has been heard by this Court.

22. Learned Senior Counsel submits on behalf of the rival faction supporting Dr. R. Anbumani, that communications of the ECI, i.e., impugned letters dated 09th November, 2025, cannot be set aside by this Court, as this Court cannot exercise any such power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. In this regard, he draws the attention of this Court to the judgment of Madras High Court in Pattali Makkal Katchi (supra), to submit that the petitioner ought to approach the competent Civil Court to seek resolution of the issues raised by it. He further submits that, as on date, no such civil suit has been filed by the petitioner.

23. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Dr. R. Anbumani has always been open to conduct of elections, however, Dr. S. Ramadoss, who is the founder of the petitioner political party and also, the father of Dr. R. Anbumani, does not wish to engage with Dr. R. Anbumani, in any manner.

24. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, at the outset, this Court notes that the dispute before this Court is essentially in the nature of an internal private dispute of an unrecognized political party, wherein, the founder member of the party, i.e., Dr. S. Ramadoss, claims himself to be the President of petitioner party. Whereas, on the other hand, Dr. R. Anbumani, who is the son of Dr. S. Ramadoss, claims himself to be the current President of the party, having his tenure till August, 2026.

25. Insofar as the position of law in respect of any unrecognised political party is concerned, it is no longer res integra that in case of any dispute related to an unrecognized political party, the ECI shall not go into such disputes, which are in the nature of internal disputes between rival factions of the unrecognized political party. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Kaushik Versus Election Commission of India & Anr., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1617, wherein, it has been held as under:

10. ABHM as aforesaid is not a recognized political party. Though the term “recognized political party” is not defined in the Act but the Explanation to Section 52 thereof provides that “recognized political party” means a political party recognized by the Election Commission under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The said Order vide Clause 15 thereof empowers the ECI, when there are rival sections or groups of a political party each of whom claims to be that party, to after taking into account all the available facts and circumstances and hearing representatives of the sections or groups, decide which of such rival section or group is that recognized political party; such decision of ECI is made binding on all such rival sections or groups. However the said Clause does not apply to unrecognized political parties as ABHM is ECI was/is thus not empowered to in the face of rival claims of respondent no. 2 Swami Chakrapani and others take any decision as to whose claim was correct. That being the position, ECI could not have on 11.11.2010 recognized respondent no. 2 Swami Chakrapani as the President/office bearer of ABHM. We are thus of the view that the decision dated 11.11.2010 of ECI of preferring the claim of respondent no. 2 Swami Chakrapani over that of others was clearly beyond the powers/jurisdiction of ECI. Axiomatically the corrective action of ECI on 14.01.2011 is found to be in accordance with law and thus cannot be faulted with. We may mention that the Supreme Court in Janata Dal (Samajwadi) v. Election Commission of India (1996) 1 SCC 235 has held the ECI empowered to rescind its orders even in the absence of any specific power therefor. It was held that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies. ECI was thus empowered to, on 14.01.2011 rescind the earlier order dated 11.11.2010 which as aforesaid was beyond its powers/jurisdiction.

11. We are further of the view that in the absence of ECI being empowered to decide such inter se disputes of an unrecognized political party, the decision dated 11.11.2010 was an administrative decision, not taken in exercise of any quasi judicial powers. The Supreme Court in R.R. Verma v. UOI (1980) 3 SCC 402, has held that decisions in administrative matters cannot be hidebound by the rules and restrictions of judicial procedure.

12. We have opted to pass a speaking judgment even though the term 2010-12 for which the respondent no. 2 Swami Chakrapani claims to be President/office bearer is expiring, to clarify the position since respondent No. 1 ECI may be faced with communication by respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani with respect to subsequent years and further since we deem it proper to clarify the position as respondent No. 1 ECI may face such issues qua other political parties also. xxx xxx xxx”

26. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly shows that, in case, the ECI takes any decision on the issue of rival claims raised by different factions of an unrecognized political party, such decision would be beyond the power/jurisdiction of the ECI as the ECI is not vested with the power/jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate claims of rival sections or groups of unrecognised political parties, each of whom claims to be that party.

27. This Court further notes the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Swami Chakrapani Versus Election Commission of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4432, wherein, the Bench, while dealing with inter se disputes amongst various rival factions within a political party, held that it was beyond the power and jurisdiction of the ECI to recognize any one faction of a political party as its President. It is pertinent to note herein that both the decisions in Swami Chakrapani (supra) and Chandra Prakash Kaushik (supra) are in respect of the same unrecognised political party and the subsequent decision of Swami Chakrapani (supra) reaffirms the law as discussed in Chandra Prakash Kaushik (supra).

28. Relevant portions of the decision in Swami Chakrapani (supra), read as under:

10. Analysis and Findings xxx xxx xxx

(i) The claim by the Appellant that he is the National President of

ABHM is in dispute. Communication dated 17.03.2020 sent by ECI to the Appellant reveals that there are as many as five other groups who are claiming to be genuinely elected party President.

(ii) From the record, it is evident that in the earlier round of litigation,

Appellant had filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 704/2011, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 02.05.2011, setting aside the letter dated 14.01.2011 issued by ECI withdrawing the recognition of the Appellant and restoring the recognition. However, on an appeal filed by a third party, being LPA No. 522/2011, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 16.03.2012. The observations of the Division Bench are extremely relevant and have a direct bearing on the issue raised by the Appellant in this appeal. Relevant paras of the judgment of the Division Bench are as follows: — “8. It is this ambivalent attitude of respondent No. 1 ECI which has weighed with the learned Single Judge in quashing the letter dated 14.01.2011. We may however notice that even the learned Single Judge has not returned any finding as to the correctness of the decision dated 11.11.2010 of respondent No. 1 ECI recognizing respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani as President/office bearer of ABHM. We are of the view that in the face of disputes since the year 2004, the recognition in the year 2010 of respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani as the President/office bearer, notwithstanding the dismissal of the civil suit for non prosecution, could not have been accorded without it being established before the respondent No. 1 ECI, i) as to who all were the members ofABHM; ii) whether the elections as prescribed in the Rules and Regulations ofABHM had been held or not; and iii) whether the respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani had so been elected as the office bearer/President. There was no such material before the respondent No. 1 ECI. It cannot also be lost sight of that even as on 11.11.2010, the respondent No. 1 ECI was continuing to receive opposition to the claims of respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani. The said opposition however appears to have been disregarded by the respondent No. 1 ECI only for the reason of being without any substantiating documents. However when respondent No. 1 ECI continued to receive objections to the claim of respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani, it undoubtedly reviewed its decision dated 11.11.2010.

9. We differ from the opinion of the learned Single Judge that the respondent No. 1 ECI could not have so reviewed its decision without an order of a competent Court of law. That would have been the position had the recognition earlier accorded to the respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani been with the consent of all concerned or had the communication of his election as President/office bearer been a unanimous one. It could then have been said that subsequent objection thereto was an afterthought and ECI would then have been justified in refusing to revoke the recognition without Court order of the earlier unanimous intimation being no longer valid. However the respondent No. 1 ECI on 14.01.2011 appears to have felt that its earlier decision dated 11.11.2010 was erroneous. The learned Single judge has held that the respondent no. 1 ECI could not have so corrected its decision. We are however of the view that this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review ought not to interfere with a decision of a body such as the respondent No. 1 ECI which decision is otherwise found to be correct in law. Such a decision cannot be quashed/set aside merely for the reason that earlier an erroneous decision had been taken. We are further of the view that in the face of such challenges, it is for the person who is wanting to exercise rights as President/office bearer to seek a declaration to such office and he cannot be allowed to hold office or to exercise powers thereof merely for the reason of the others having not approached the Court of law. We may however clarify that we have so concluded in view of there being no unequivocal document before us of the election of the respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani as office bearer of ABHM in accordance with its constitution. Rather what is before us is, material to show that there have been disputes since the year 2004 as to the internal management of ABHM and which do not appear to have been resolved at any point of time. Merely because the persons who had filed the suit chose not to pursue the same cannot confer any legitimacy to the respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani when a large number of other persons concerned with ABHM are continuing to dispute the claim of respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani. We have also perused the written statement filed by the respondent No. 2 Swami Chakrapani in the suit aforesaid and from which also we are unable to cull out any clarity on the matter. Moreover the said suit was filed in the year 2007 while what was for consideration in the year 2010 was the election of the respondent No. 2 for the period 2010-12.

10. ABHM as aforesaid is not a recognized political party. Though the term “recognized political party” is not defined in the Act but the Explanation to Section 52 thereof provides that “recognized political party” means a political party recognized by the Election Commission under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The said Order vide Clause 15 thereof empowers the ECI, when there are rival sections or groups of a political party each of whom claims to be that party to after taking into account all the available facts and circumstances and hearing representatives of the sections or groups, decide which of such rival section or group is that recognized political party; such decision of ECI is made binding on all such rival sections or groups. However the said Clause does not apply to unrecognized political parties as ABHM is. ECI was/is thus not empowered to in the face of rival claims of respondent no. 2 Swami Chakrapani and others take any decision as to whose claim was correct. That being the position, ECI could not have on 11.11.2010 recognized respondent no. 2 Swami Chakrapani as the President/office bearer of ABHM. We are thus of the view that the decision dated 11.11.2010 of ECI of preferring the claim of respondent no. 2 Swami Chakrapani over that of others was clearly beyond the powers/jurisdiction of ECI. Axiomatically the corrective action of ECI on 14.01.2011 is found to be in accordance with law and thus cannot be faulted with. We may mention that the Supreme Court in Janata Dal (Samajwadi) v. Election Commission of India (1996) 1 SCC 235 has held the ECI empowered to rescind its orders even in the absence of any specific power therefor. It was held that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies. ECI was thus empowered to, on 14.01.2011 rescind the earlier order dated 11.11.2010 which as aforesaid was beyond its powers/jurisdiction.

11. We are further of the view that in the absence of ECI being empowered to decide such inter se disputes of an unrecognized political party, the decision dated 11.11.2010 was an administrative decision, not taken in exercise of any quasi judicial powers. The Supreme Court in R.R. Verma v. UOI (1980) 3 SCC 402, has held that decisions in administrative matters cannot be hidebound by the rules and restrictions of judicial procedure.”

(iv) Challenge to the orders of the Division Bench was unsuccessful and the SLP was dismissed in limine on 06.05.2013. Reading of the order of the Division Bench leads to an inevitable conclusion that the only remedy available to the Appellant is to seek a declaration in a civil suit with regard to his claim to be a National President of ABHM. The Division Bench clearly observed that it was beyond the powers and jurisdiction of ECI to recognize the Appellant as the President, more so, in view of the inter se disputes, where several rival persons were claiming to be the party President. It was also observed that notwithstanding the dismissal of the civil suit for nonprosecution, filed by one of the rival groups, Appellant could not be recognized as the National President, in the absence of any material to show that he was the elected President and especially in face of the material on record, showing internal disputes in the Management since 2004. The Division Bench also held that in case any person wanted to exercise his or her rights as President/office bearer, it was for him to seek a declaration to that effect and he cannot be allowed to hold office merely for the reason that the others have not approached the Court of Law.

(v) It may also be useful at this stage to allude to the order of the

Division Bench dated 13.07.2012, passed in the Review Petition, wherein it was held that the inter se disputes have to be resolved in a civil suit and if the Appellant claimed himself to be the President, it was for him to seek a declaration to that effect. It was reiterated that the ECI does not have the power to exercise any quasi-judicial powers and decide the inter se disputes pertaining to unrecognized political party.

29. It is to be noted that the judgment in Swami Chakrapani (supra) was upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 21194/2021, vide order dated 07th February, 2022, wherein, the Supreme Court refused to interfere in the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in the following manner: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.”

30. This Court also takes note of the judgment in the case of Janata Party Versus Election Commission of India and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2642, wherein, it has been reiterated that it is not for the ECI to resolve any internal disputes within unrecognized political parties. Thus, it was held as follows:

18. In Hans Raj Jain (supra), a Division Bench of this court has held that Section 29A(9) of the Representation of the People Act requiring a registered political party to communicate to ECI any change in its name, head office, office bearers, address or any other material matter does not enjoin any corresponding duty on the ECI to exercise any such power over the political parties.

19. In the present case, the alleged status of Jai Prakash Bandhu as President of the petitioner is disputed by various rival factions of the petitioner. As noticed hereinabove, a civil suit filed by Mr. Navneet Chaturvedi [CS SCJ 228/2023] is still pending in which the said Navneet Chaturvedi claims to be the President of the petitioner. In the said suit the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by Jai Prakash Bandhu stands dismissed. Moreover, vide letter 31.10.2022 Mr. Raj Kapoor communicated to ECI that Jai Prakash Bandhu had been expelled from the party and enclosed a resolution dated 08.08.2022 to substantiate the same. The said resolution also stated that elections of the petitioner were to be held on 01.11.2022. Vide letter dated 02.11.2022, Mr. Raj Kapoor claimed to be elected as the President of the party in the said elections purportedly held on 01.11.2022. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases, it is not for the ECI to resolve these disputes. No direction can be issued to the ECI by this court to recognize the petitioner as a President of petitioner, in the wake of disputes pending in that regard.

20. Unlike Clause 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation And Allotment) Order, 1968, which empowers ECI to decide disputes between rival sections or groups of a “recognised political party” each of whom claims to be that party, there is no corresponding provision that empowers ECI to decide disputes between rival sections or groups of a “unrecognized political party”, like the petitioner.

23. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer/s in the present petition cannot be acceded to in the light of the law laid down in Swami Chakrapani (supra) and Chandra Prakash Kaushik (supra). Accordingly, the present petition, alongwith pending application/s, is dismissed.”

31. Thus, the position of law as propounded by this Court is that, while Clause 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation And Allotment) Order, 1968, empowers ECI to decide disputes between rival sections or groups of a “recognised political party” each of whom claims to be that party, there is no corresponding provision that empowers ECI to decide disputes between rival sections or groups of a “unrecognized political party”, like the petitioner herein.

32. This Court also considers the judgment passed by this Court in Govind Yadav Versus Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6016, wherein, with respect to the scope of Section 29A(9) of the RP Act, it has been categorically held that the said Section only obliges a political party to inform the ECI of any changes in the registration details, so that correction can be made by the ECI in its record, and communications can be addressed accurately. However, there is no specific duty imposed upon the ECI to give any finding concerning the internal affairs of a political party. The portions of the said judgment in Govind Yadav (supra), relevant to the issue at hand, read as under:

23. In the context of sub-section 9 of Section 29-A of the RP Act and its contours, a Division Bench of this Court in S.S. Karana case [S.S. Karana v. Election Commission of India, 1993 SCC OnLine Del 257] has held that following the registration of an association or body as a political party, any alteration to its name, head office, office bearers, address, or other material matters must be promptly communicated to the ECI without any delay. This requirement ensures that any changes to the details initially provided in the registration application, as mandated by sub-section (4), are updated for the facility of the political party. The obligation rests with the political party to inform the ECI of such changes so that corrections can be made in its record and communications can be accurately addressed. The Court observed that no specific duty imposed upon the ECI or neglect thereof could be demonstrated in light of the said provision. In paragraph 6 and 7 of the judgment, the Court further ruled that matters concerning the internal affairs of a political party, including any deviations, cannot be contested in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion has been culled out below for reference:- “6. The entire argument by counsel for the petitioner was that under sub-section (9) it is the duty of the Election Commission to see that a registered political party complies with its memorandum or rules and regulations and if any political party does not conform to them, a writ petition would lie. A reading of sub-section (9) shows that after an association or body has been registered as a political party, any change in its name, head office, office bearers, address or in any other material matters shall be communicated to the Commission without delay. This only shows that if there is any change in the particulars, which were contained in the application at the time of registration, as required by subsection (4), that has to be intimated to the Election Commission for the facility of the political party and there is no duty enjoined on the Election Commission. The duty is cast on the political party, that if there is any change in the aforesaid particulars, the Election Commission may be informed immediately so that it may make correction in its record and if there is any communication to be addressed, it may be addressed in the name of the correct person and at the correct address. The petitioner does not disclose as to what duly was enjoined upon the Election Commission, which it has failed to carry out.

7. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the members on the AICC attending the Suraj Kund Session agreed to deviate from the party constitution and thereby illegally empowered the President of the AICC to nominate two members to the Working Committee, who according to the constitution of the organisation have to be elected. To cur mind it is internal affair of the political party and deviation, if any, cannot be called in question in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

24. In another decision, in the case of Hans Raj Jain case [Hans Raj Jain v. Election Commission of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8173], a Division Bench of this Court held that, although there are guidelines mandating the incorporation of specific provisions, in the rules or constitution of an association or body seeking registration as a political party, regarding internal democracy, organizational elections at various levels, and the methods of such elections, neither Section 29A of RP Act nor the aforementioned guidelines impose a requirement for the ECI to conduct an inquiry into the fairness or validity of elections held for the positions of office bearers within the political party. The relevant portion of the said decision has been extracted below for reference:-

accompanied with individual affidavits from at least 100 members of the Party but there is again no requirement for the ECI to, prior to registration investigate into the validity of the said affidavits if otherwise on face they are affidavits of members of such party. Similarly, we do not find any provision requiring ECI to inquire/investigate if in the documents furnished the address of any office bearer of a political party seeking registration is shown at different two addresses. Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to which reference is made only contains prohibition against registration on the electoral rolls for more than one constituency. Violation thereof has, in Pothula Rama Rao v. Pendyala Venakata Krishna Rao, (2007) 11 SCC 1 and in Ramnarain Ramgopal Chamediya v. Ramchandra Jagoba Kadu, AIR 1958 Bom 325, been held to be not fatal. There is no provision in Section 29A or in the Guidelines for scrutiny/investigation to be done and for the reason of not doing of which the petitioner finds fault with the registration. It is significant that no person who may have been shown as a member of the party has come forward to say that he/she was shown a member of the party without his/her consent. Similarly no person at whose address AAP may have shown its office has come forward to say that he had not allowed AAP to use its premises as an officer or had not given NOC therefor. A political party is like a club and in respect whereto the law is clear that the Courts will not interfere in its indoor management.

20. Mention may also be made of S.S. Karana v. Election Commission where a Division Bench of this Court held that Section 29A(9) requiring a registered political party to communicate to ECI any change in its name, head office, office bearers, address or any other material matter does not enjoin any corresponding duty on the ECI to exercise any such power over the political parties.”

33. Thus, any information that is provided to the ECI in terms of Section 29A(9) of the RP Act, is only for the purposes of providing the information to the ECI with respect to any change in the name, head office, office bearers, address, etc. of a registered political party. The ECI receives such information so that the record of the ECI with respect to a registered political party is updated. However, the ECI does not verify or examine the veracity of such information that may be provided to the ECI. Further, no faction or any person can claim any special equity on the basis of any such information that may be in the record of the ECI, when there are internal disputes within the unrecognized registered political party with regard to any issue. The ECI will not recognize any rival faction of a registered unrecognized party in case of internal disputes, as it is not for the ECI to resolve these disputes. Such inter se disputes in a registered and unrecognized party, would have to be resolved in a civil suit.

34. Lastly, this Court also takes note of the judgment in the case of Pattali Makkal Katchi Versus Dr. R. Anbumani and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 4758, passed by the Madras High Court, as also cited by the respondent-ECI and on behalf of the faction supporting Dr. R. Anbumani, wherein, it has been held as under:

14. The issue as to whether the meeting is properly convened by the 1st respondent as per by-laws, is not a matter which can be gone into in a writ petition. It is purely a private dispute within the Party as between the founder and the 1st respondent. Hence, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with all the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, touching upon the by-laws. At the best, it can only be a subject matter of civil proceedings where the so-called illegality in convening the General Body Meeting and electing the President can be questioned.

15. As already observed supra, a private dispute between the father and the son can never be dealt with in a writ petition. A writ petition is normally not maintainable as against a private person in the absence of a public duty component. Useful reference can be made to the judgement of the Apex Court in S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd., reported in 2025 4 CTC 327 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

9. We may sum up thus: (1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental. (2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. (3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep 11a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company. (4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty. (5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty. (6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body. (7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action. (8) According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, 12 p.682, “a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit”. There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point.

35. It is apparent upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment that the Madras High Court has already given a categorical finding that such a private dispute as the present with regard to rival claims, especially between a father and son, shall not be entertained by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, such disputes ought to be raised before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

36. This Court also notes the submission made by learned counsel for the ECI that communications dated 09th November, 2025, may not be read as any decision by the ECI on the merits of any of the rival claims raised with respect to the petitioner party. This Court further notes the submission of learned counsel for the ECI that the tenor of the said letters be read in the manner that the ECI has clearly advised that in case of any rival disputes, the concerned parties ought to approach the competent Civil Court to settle such disputes.

37. This Court also records the submissions made by learned counsel for the ECI that the ECI shall not decide upon any controversy with regard to the recognition of either Dr. R. Anbumani or Dr. S. Ramadoss, as the President of the petitioner party.

38. Accordingly, in view of the settled law discussed hereinabove and upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the parties before this Court, it is manifest that the ECI has no power or jurisdiction to give any finding as regards internal disputes emanating from rival sections within an unrecognized political party, as in the case of the petitioner political party. Furthermore, the ECI, as such, shall not recognize or de-recognize any rival faction or any claims that may be raised by any rival faction.

39. Accordingly, with the aforesaid clarification, and noting the position of law as above, the present writ petition, along with pending applications, is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 4, 2025