WB Panchayat Elections: Calcutta High Court Seeks SEC's Response On Allegations Of Forced Withdrawal Of Nominations

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday sought the response of West Bengal State Election Commission (“SEC”) to allegations regarding forced withdrawal of nominations filed by candidates for the upcoming panchayat elections, slated to be held on July 8.

“We don’t understand how the Commission is being run…the voters themselves are complaining that someone who was desirous of filing nomination was not able and their right of choice is being affected…how is this possible….even in that case we have asked for a report…and then it was heard that almost 20,000 nominations have been withdrawn…speaking for myself, the Commission is usually always in touch with the Standing Counsels and they always respond to the orders of the Court and send reports on time…this is not happening…we don’t know how it runs here…” a Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnaman and Justice Uday Kumar orally observed.

The remarks were made while hearing a contempt petition initiated against the SEC for its alleged disobedience of the Court’s orders dated 13^th June and 15^th June for deployment of paramilitary forces and fair conduct of election process. Such orders were affirmed by the Supreme Court in an elaborate order dated 20^th June 2023.

Applicants argued that even after repeated orders of the High Court, the SEC did not pay heed to any of the directions listed therein. Many directions such as the identification of sensitive areas from law-and-order point of view, appointment of independent observers, immediate requisitioning of central forces, among others, were allegedly ignored.

It was the case of the applicants, that the SEC had “irretrievably forfeited” the confidence reposed on it by the Court. It was also submitted that, in the absence of law & order, pressure was being put on candidates to withdraw nominations, with almost 20000 candidates withdrawing their nominations in the preceding 5 days, among other allegations of corruption.

It was submitted on behalf of the SEC, that they were acting without any loss of time, and keeping in mind the need to conduct fair and independent elections. For this, they submitted that, upon receipt of the Supreme Court order on 20^th June, they had immediately written to the relevant department of the Central Government for the deployment of 800 companies of Central Forces, making up for approximately more than 60,000 personnel, in addition to the 1700 plus, that had already been deployed.

According to the SEC, while this hearing was ongoing, the Central government had approved the deployment of 315 companies, who would be arriving at any minute, and that the remaining companies would also be approved and deployed at the earliest.

ASG Ashok Kr Chakrabarti also furnished an official communication from the Central Government that the requisition for central forces had been received and that a substantial number of forces had been mobilised and were being sent, and the remaining would be sent in the immediate future.

The SEC further submitted, that a total of 273 Class One West Bengal Civil Service Officers, and 22 Indian Administrative Services Officers had been appointed as Election Observers, and that the SEC was making every attempt to comply with the decisions of the HC and SC.

The Bench in their Order acknowledged that the intention behind the earlier orders of the Court were to maintain time as of the essence, uphold the independence of the election process and maintain its purity as was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, while they noted the SEC’s submissions regarding the requisitioning of forces and appointment of observers, according to the Bench, the crucial question in this case would be on how the delay between the initial orders of the Court, and the first requisition for central forces must be computed and whether any such delay would tantamount to wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court.

According to the Bench, both the orders on the 13^th June and 15^th June had definitive timelines mentioned within them, and it must be examined whether there was an attempt by the SEC to make these orders unworkable by their conduct at different stages.

It was held that such a question could not be decided without affidavits, and the SEC was directed to file an affidavit detailing its actions and the time taken to do the same pertaining to all the aspects that were covered by the High Court in both its orders as upheld by the Supreme Court.

“Given totality of circumstances…we are of view that strict monitoring is to be done…for this, affidavits have to be filed after which court will consider if there had been wilful neglect of the court orders expect SEC to answer the prayers on merits without technical objection as we have observed that orders passed by court are incidental to each other and the object behind it is to ensure free and fair elections and to preserve the purity….” it held.

Matter has been listed for hearing next on 28^th June.

Coram: Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnaman and Justice Uday Kumar

Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v Rajiva Sinha, State Election Commissioner and other connected petitions.