Democracy Can't Be Looted By Muscle Power, Country Run On Public Mandate: Calcutta HC Sets Aside 2023 Gram Panchayat Election Result Over Ballot Snatching

The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside the election result of the gram panchayat election of Sankrail, West Bengal which was held in 2023 over allegations of 'merciless beating', 'violence' and ballot snatching by hooligans belonging to the ruling dispensation during the counting of votes.

A single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha also cancelled the election certificate of the returned candidate, directed the seat to be treated as vacant, and asked the Election Commission to take steps for holding fresh elections. The Court stated:

The Commission ought to take bold steps to uphold the goal and value of democracy and not let antisocial elements and hooligans trample democracy right under its nose. When the offence came to the knowledge of the machineries of the Commission, then prompt necessary action to stall the counting process was the only remedy to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Democracy is not a toy to be snatched away or looted by muscle power. It is a very powerful tool in the hands of the general public, the electorate, on whose mandate the country is run. The moment such incidents comes to the fore, it is to be immediately crushed with an iron hand, it added.

The petitioner had contested the 2023 Panchayat elections and made allegations of beating, snatching and looting of ballot papers during counting of votes. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed, and the SEC was directed to probe the matter.

The SEC investigated the matter, and admitted to the incident. It was stated that snatching of ballots had taken place, but even though the observer had instructed the counting officer not to proceed with counting of the votes, the counting continued after Form 24 was issued.

It was further stated that since the margin between the first and second candidates was less than the lost ballots, the BDO and Returning Officer had requested the SEC to cancel the certificate given, but the SEC held that the counting had been satisfactorily completed.

It was stated by the SEC that since the certificate had already been issued, the only remedy available to the losing candidate was through an election petition.

Petitioner argued that since the SEC had admitted the snatching of ballots had happened from the counting table, they should have revoked the election certificate, and prayed for the court to grant similar relief. 

Counsel for the state argued that after the counting was completed, the EC would become functus officio and didn't have any authority to revoke or cancel election certificates.

Court noted that the SEC had admitted the petitioner's allegation of ballot snatching and even noted that the Returning Officer, BDO and Observer had verbally instructed the counting officer to stop the counting of votes, but the same had not been stopped and election certificate was issued after completion of counting.

In observing the conduct of the counting officer, the Court noted that the officer ought to have immediately stopped the counting once the snatching and looting began. 

It further stated that being the ultimate body to conduct free elections, the EC could not relegate the complainant to an election petition on the assertion that it had become functus officio once the counting was over.

Court stated that the purpose of an election petition was separate and that its disposal would take a while, involving financial expenses. It was observed that in case the candidate did not have the means to fight such a battle, the illegality would automatically get legalised and that such a step would amount to disregarding the mandate of the people and a blotch in the principle of democracy enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution.

Court concluded that the Election commission ought to have taken more effective steps in the present case and that it would have been improper and unjust to allow a candidate who was elected after a disrupted counting process to continue as an elected candidate.

Accordingly, the election was set aside, the candidate's selection was cancelled and the EC was directed to hold fresh elections in the area.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 98