Supreme Court Orders NCP Ajit Pawar To Issue Fresh Advertisement Prominently Displaying Disclaimer On Party Symbol

The Supreme Court today ordered the Ajit Pawar faction of the Nationalist Congress Party to issue fresh advertisements in the "prominent part" of newspapers, especially local ones, clarifying that disclaimer that the traditional NCP ‘clock’ symbol is sub judice.

The Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the Ajit Pawar faction to publish an "exclusive disclaimer" regarding the 'clock' symbol in "the prominent part of the newspapers", especially in Marathi language, within 36 hours. The senior counsel for the faction had submitted that it was planning to issue fresh advertisements in the newspapers containing the Court-ordered disclaimer.

The said disclaimer, Ordered by the Court to be included in campaign materials, states that a legal dispute is ongoing between the Ajit Pawar and Sharad Pawar factions over the allocation of ‘clock’ party symbol. The ‘clock’ symbol currently rests with the Ajit Pawar faction, while the Sharad Pawar faction uses the symbol of ‘man blowing turha’ (a traditional trumpet). In the last hearing on October 24, the Court had ordered the Ajit Pawar faction to "meticulously" comply with its March 19 Order.

Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Sharad Pawar faction, said that the other faction "knows the benefit of Sharad Pawar's name and the clock... Don't ride piggyback on me. Just have any symbol other than the clock." Dr. Singhvi added that the Court had made an arrangement only with the object of ensuring free and fair elections and level playing field. "Now if you find that the clock is being misused, what will happen? Should I come to your lordships every day in the middle of the elections?" If the Court's Orders were being violated, it was "entitled to say don't use the clock."

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for the Ajit Pawar faction, contended that it was now too late to change the party symbol. "They have filed their nomination. We have filed our nominations. The elections are after ten days." To this, Dr. Singhvi asked the Court to consider whether using the 'clock' symbol will be misleading and make the playing field non-levelled.

"Every day you must be publishing your advertisements and everything. (Then) why are you taking time to publish disclaimer?" Justice Surya Kant asked. Senior Advocate Balbir Singh replied that in every advertisement and scheme, the disclaimer is present. He claimed that the Sharad Pawar faction is "trying to disrupt the whole process" of election by making "false statements" about violation of the Court's Orders on the disclaimer. "There is not even a single non-compliance. They have taken pictures...with a certain background where the disclaimer is not coming." 

Advocate Pranjal Agarwal, appearing for the Sharad Pawar faction, accused Ajit Pawar faction of deleting evidence. "They have deleted videos which we had annexed as evidence where the disclaimer was not there. Yet, in their counter affidavit, they have stated that these videos always had the disclaimer. If they always had it, why did they delete it?" Bad faith actors associated with Ajit Pawar were showing old videos of Sharad Pawar with a superimposed 'clock' symbol saying Ajit Pawar is a good candidate, he claimed. 

To this, Justice Surya Kant said, "You are alleging some violation, some non-compliance. Tell us the solution." Sharad Pawar's counsel then responded that their prayer is that the solution proposed by the Court (on disclaimers) is not workable on the ground "because all bad faith actors cannot be supervised." He later prayed before the Bench that since "confusion is writ large" among the electorate, the Ajit Pawar faction be directed to apply for a fresh symbol.

The Bench questioned the Ajit Pawar faction about the photo of a party hoarding submitted by the Sharad Pawar, which also had a newspaper dated November 1, 2024. "Show from this where is the disclaimer." Justice Datta told Balbir Singh, to which he pleaded, "How do I know from where this photo was taken. My side has not been heard." He then showed pictures of hoardings and other campaign material which possessed the disclaimer.

Cause Title: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar And Anr. [SLP(C) 4248/2024]