Election Violence: Calcutta High Court Finds Similarities In Voter's PIL And Petition Filed By Prospective Candidates, Says It's Prima Facie A 'Set Up'

A Calcutta High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sivagnaman and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, on Monday, took exception to the fact that a Public Interest Litigation filed by “independent voters” may have been politically motivated. The voters had complained that the unopposed elections of ruling-party candidates from their block, while stopping the nomination of rival “prospective candidates” took away their right to choose.

A similar petition, filed by the aforesaid “prospective candidates”, complaining of being stopped from filing nominations from Canning- I block is pending before single-judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha.

Upon noting the substantial similarities between the recitals and prayers of both Writ petitions filed in the matter by private litigants, Justice Sivagnaman orally remarked, “We find the averments in both the petitions to be identical…at least 7-9 paragraphs and 8 grounds are similar…identical pleadings, the font is also identical...you please come forward, because there is a serious allegation made that the petitioner has been set up by one candidate who is already before the single bench…"

The bench continued,

"I may dictate a judgement, language may be different, [Justice Gupta] may dictate a judgement, his language will be different, even you and your junior will use different types of expressions when dictating…let us admit…don’t run away from the problem or we will summon the petitioner…it is cut-paste…can we not draw an inference saying that somebody has set up this petitioner or he is a mouthpiece of somebody…been projected as public interest litigant…are we not justified in saying that on this ground, the petition needs to be rejected.”

The Court was hearing PILs filed by “independent voters” regarding the unopposed elections of candidates against 274 seats of the Canning- I block in the WB Panchayat Elections. It was claimed by the petitioners, that desirous candidates were not allowed to file nominations and this had in turn affected the right of the electorate to choose, leading to unopposed victories for ruling party candidates.

It was argued by the Counsel for the candidates that they had not been made party to the said writ petition and hence their rights could not be prejudiced till they were given a chance to be heard in the matter after being made parties to it.

On the other hand, it was argued by the Counsel for the State Election Commission as well as the Counsel for the State, that the petition in its present format was not maintainable, and even so, the grounds laid out in both petitions were identical, giving rise to a suspicion of mala fide and proving that the petition was not public-spirited, but in fact politically motivated.

The matter will be taken up next Monday.

Case: Taj Md Halder v State of WB

Coram: Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnaman and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta