NHRC Was Not Right In Seeking To Supervise West Bengal Panchayat Polls; Conduct Of Elections SEC's Sole Responsibility : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by the National Human Rights Commission challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgment which set aside the NHRC's decision to appoint its observers for the panchayat elections in the State of West Bengal.

On June 23, a single bench of the Calcutta High Court had set aside the NHRC direction and this was further affirmed by a division bench on July 5. The Commission sought to appointment observers “to protect human rights” in the course of the 2023 Panchayat Elections, on the basis of media reports on wide-spread violence.

A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the SLP, finding that the interference by the NHRC undermined the ‘autonomy’ and ‘independence’ of the State Election Commission, even though the NHRC had ‘good intentions’.

“We find that the NHRC had good intentions so far as exercising its jurisdiction under Section 12 of the 1993 Act [Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993] is concerned. But the manner in which the said jurisdiction/powers are exercised in our view is totally in contravention and in violation of the statutory provisions of Art. 243 (K) of the Constitution of India, in so far as the conduct of elections for the Panchayat Raj elections in the state is concerned. What the impugned communications sought to do was to supervise the conduct of elections in a parallel way, when that is the sole responsibility of the SEC.” the Apex Court stated in its order.

The Apex Court went on to say that issuing directions to the State Election Commission, the Centre and State calling for Status Reports and deployment of Human Rights’ Observers in sensitive areas by exercising its suo motu powers under Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, 1993 was contrary to the objective of Art. 243 (K) of the Constitution that places sole responsibility on conduct of elections to the election commission:

"It is needless to observe, that the object of giving such autonomy and independence is to ensure the Election Commission whether at the Centre or State, perform their duties independently without being influenced from any quarter. In view of the above, we find that the NHRC was not right in assuming to ‘conduct’ the elections in the manner in which it has sought to do.”

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appearing for the NHRC submitted in Court that the jurisdiction of the NHRC is not barred due to the Election Commission. “No interpretation of Art. 324 will exclude the application and interplay of the Human Rights Act.” he said.

However, Justice B V Nagarathna interjected him to say “An independent election body is there to conduct free and fair election. Elections are over. Now we don’t expect another national body to supervise the SEC.”

Referring to the June 2023 order of the Apex Court that affirmed the Calcutta High Court's order directing the SEC to requisition central forces for all districts for the 2023 Panchayat Elections, Justice B V Nagarathna also went on to say that whether the Apex Court was right in intervening in the conduct of elections and call for central paramilitary forces in the State, is also debatable “It is matter of debate whether the High Court and Supreme Court could have passed the order calling for central forces. Whether the Supreme Court has crossed the limits is a matter of debate. When that is a matter of debate, you want us to cross another limit?”

Sr Adv Maninder Singh argued that the High Court was wrong in assuming that the incidents of violence based on which suo motu cognizance was taken by the NHRC were more than a year old

“The High Court has said that if the complaint is one year old then the jurisdiction of the NHRC will not come into play. The High Court has also said media reports cannot be relied upon. The High Court also said the incidents are more than one year old. But these are incidents of 2023. ‘Frontline’ has reported 5 incidents of violence but the High Court says that the NHRC cannot enquire into incidents from 2018 and 2021. Frontline publication is reporting incidents from 2023. There is a fundamental error in the High Court’s assumption that we are enquiring into incidents that are more than 1 year old. These incidents are with respect April and May 2023.” He argued.

To which Justice Nagarathna said that the Court was already aware of the instances of violence and had already intervened in the matter. “This year, the High Court called Central Paramilitary forces to pre-empt the election, to aid the SEC. This was challenged by the SEC and the state government, the SLP was dismissed. There was action taken, because the Court knew about these incidents, now you want to take parallel action. The High Court intervened, entertained the petitions of so many parties, gave positive directions, and monitored it. Where jurisdiction has exclusively been given by the constitution to the election commission, the Human Rights Commission cannot intervene.” she said. 

Justice Nagarathna said that the NHRC exceeded its jurisdiction by stepping in, and that there were instances in the country where it should have intervened but failed to do so “We are not saying the Human Rights Commission does not have power where there is a violation of human rights. We will appreciate if it steps in when it has to step in. Not step into somebody else’s jurisdiction. In India, there are so many instances where the NHRC can step in, but it is not doing it. If we accept your contention, then the Human Rights Commission will become the Super Election Commission of India.” she said.

Sr. Adv. Jaideep Gupta appeared for the State Election Commission (SEC)

Previously in dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held that the NHRC would have to trace the validity of its actions to its parent statute, viz. the Human Rights Act, 1993, which was not done in this case.

“NHRC being a statutory authority constituted under the 1993 Act has to act within the forecorners of the said statute and the regulations framed thereunder subject to the limitations imposed upon it by the statute and the regulations thereunder. It is the duty of the SEC, being a constitutional authority to appoint observers in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act. Therefore, the NHRC cannot encroach upon the jurisdiction of the SEC by appointing observers”, it was held.

Case Title: National Human Rights Commission And Ors. V.The West Bengal State Election Commission And Ors, SLP(C) No. 16053/2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Click Here To Read/Download Order