NDM files writ against provision for using party symbol while running from electoral alliance
The government has issued a revised RPO ordinance inserting the provision requiring registered parties in an alliance to contest the election using their own symbols
The National Democratic Movement (NDM) has filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the rule that requires each party in an alliance to contest the upcoming 13th national election using its own symbol.
The writ seeks cancellation of the provision added to the Representation of the People Order (RPO), which states that even if multiple registered parties join an electoral alliance, each must still contest using its own party symbol.
Today (27 November), NDM Secretary General Mominul Islam filed the petition on behalf of the party led by Bobby Hajjaj. The Chief Election Commissioner and other relevant authorities have been made respondents.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
NDM Organising Secretary Barrister Shahedul Azam told journalists that the writ may be heard next week by a High Court bench headed by Justice Fatema Najib. Senior lawyer Ahsanul Karim will argue for the petitioners.
Earlier, on 3 November, the government issued a revised RPO ordinance inserting the provision requiring registered parties in an alliance to contest the election using their own symbols. Previously, parties within an alliance were allowed to choose the electoral symbol of any member party.
Before that, on 23 October, the advisory council had given policy approval to the draft of the amended ordinance.
The BNP had earlier opposed the new provision, arguing that alliance partners should be able to use a common symbol. The party formally conveyed its objections to both the Election Commission and the Law Ministry. Several smaller parties interested in forming alliances had also expressed discomfort over the government's decision.
Jamaat-e-Islami later expressed strong objections after hearing that the government had taken a policy decision to drop the provision. Ultimately, however, the ordinance was issued with the provision unchanged.
