Calcutta HC Issues 'Rule Nisi' Against SEC, Asks To Show Why Action Should Not Be Taken For 'Deliberate Violation' Of Orders During Panchayat Polls

The Calcutta High Court has issued "Rule Nisi" in a contempt application against the West Bengal State Election Commission (“SEC”) for its “deliberate violation” of court orders during the recently concluded West Bengal Panchayat General Elections 2023.

Rule was issued in accordance with the Rule 19 of the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Court, Rules, 1975, for failing to comply with the Court’s orders for deployment of central forces in the recently concluded Panchayat Elections, in “letter and spirit.”

Earlier, a division-bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Uday Kumar had refused to issue Rule ex parte against the SEC, and accordingly heard the submissions of Senior Advocate PS Raman for the SEC and AG SN Mookherjee for the State.

Court took exception to the SEC’s failure to inter alia provide deployment plans for central forces, “dragging their feet” over the deployment and being reluctant to comply with repeated orders. It held:

In the light of the above discussion and after having elaborately heard the submissions of the respective parties, we are of the clear view that there is deliberate violation of the order and direction passed by this Court and therefore this is a fit case where Rule NISI has to be issued in terms of Rule 19 of the Calcutta High Court contempt of Court Rules, 1975 to the State Election Commission, the respondent contemnor in CPAN 831 of 2023.

SEC “dragging their feet” over central forces deployment in State

The Court found that the SEC had not initiated any concrete steps pertaining to the Court’s earlier orders for deployment of central forces but instead ‘feigned compliance of the Court’s directions to make believe as if the order had ben complied with.’

It was held that although the SEC and State had a right to appeal before the Supreme Court, they had made no prayer for extension of time, but had intended to comply with the court’s order in a “grossly inadequate manner” by initially requisitioning only 22 companies of central forces.

“This also brings to light that the State Election Commission did not make a proper assessment or was it a deliberate attempt to make an under-assessment just to hoodwink the Court that order and direction has been complied with,” it was held.

SEC “not cooperating” with central forces deployment, making Court order unworkable

The Court noted that the SEC had failed to supply a deployment plan to the central forces coordinator, the Inspector General, BSF.

It was observed that the explanation provided by the SEC for not supplying a deployment plan was that neither the MHA nor the force coordinator had asked for one.

In rebuking these arguments, the Court remarked:

The requisition of Central Forces was pursuant to the directions of this Court. Therefore, it goes without saying that whatever forces which have been requisitioned should be deployed in such a manner to best serve the purpose for which such deployment was directed by the Court. Therefore, it is a pre-requisite that the State Election Commission should have drawn up a deployment plan well in advance and shared the same without even waiting for the Force Coordinator to seek for the same. This in our view would clearly show that there has been every attempt to make the order and direction issued in the writ petition unworkable.

SEC failed to identify sensitive booths, clear acts of contempt

In finally noting that the SEC had taken no proactive steps in complying with the orders and direction of the Court on the deployment of Central forces, it was observed that even the direction for identification of sensitive booths had not been complied with.

It was observed that the SEC was attempting to “shirk responsibility” to other stakeholders such as DM, CP, SP, etc.

Court noted that the SEC had been found ‘thoroughly lacking’ in its compliance with the Court orders, and that:

The identification of the sensitive booths was directed to be done by the State Election Commission and there is no other way out and the State Election Commission could not have delegated the same to any other subordinate authority. This again is a clear act of contempt.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appearing for the contempt applicants had on earlier occasions submitted that the State and State Election Commission had committed blatant and flagrant violation of the Court’s orders which had directed the immediate deployment of central forces, and demarcation of sensitive areas for the Panchayat Election.

It was submitted that, due to the ignorance of Court orders, large-scale violence had taken place and that many people had lost their lives and been injured in such violence.

Respondents had argued that they had genuinely complied with the Court’s orders, and that once the Supreme Court had disposed of the SLP, central forces were immediately deployed within the following days.

Accordingly, upon the issuance of Rule, the alleged contemnors were given four-weeks to respond to the same, with the matter being made returnable after the Puja vacations.

Notably, the Court refused to issue Rule in another contempt application against the SEC, upon noting that a case had not been made out to show wilful and deliberate violation of the Court orders by SEC therein.

Case: Suvendu Adhikari v Rajiva Sinha State Election Commissioner & connected applications

Case No: CPAN/831/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 318