The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Nationalist Congress Party (Ajit Pawar faction) to file an undertaking in Court that its earlier orders regarding party symbol will be complied with. The Court allowed Ajit Pawar’s faction to use the erstwhile party’s clock symbol with the disclaimer that the issue is sub judice.
In a major setback to Sharad Pawar’s faction, the Supreme Court refused to restrain the Maharashtra deputy chief minister’s party from using the ‘clock’ symbol during assembly elections.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the Ajit Pawar faction to adhere to its earlier two verdicts and carry a disclaimer regarding the symbol in all publicity materials during the campaign for Maharashtra Assembly polls.
The top court on March 19 and April 4 had directed the Ajit Pawar-led faction to issue a public notice in the newspapers in English, Hindi and Marathi editions notifying that the allocation of “clock” symbol was sub-judice. The apex court had further said the Ajit faction was permitted to use the symbol subject to the case’s final outcome.
During the proceedings on Thursday, the bench took note of the submissions of senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the Sharad Pawar faction. Singhvi submitted that the opponent group should be restrained from using the “clock” symbol as it didn’t use the disclaimer in their campaign materials and “misled” voters.
“They have been blatantly not using the disclaimer. They want to piggyback on me. Nobody should enjoy the goodwill of the symbol which is sub-judice,” submitted Singhvi. The top court directed Ajit Pawar to file a fresh undertaking over it’s earlier directions.
The Sharad Pawar faction in its plea urged the SC to direct the Ajit Pawar-led faction to apply for a fresh symbol with the Election Commission as the latter was misusing the ‘clock’ symbol to create confusion in the minds of the public.
“We expect both sides to comply with our directions. Don’t create an embarrassing situation for yourselves. If we find there is a deliberate attempt to violate our order, we can initiate suo motu contempt,” the bench observed.