Calcutta High Court: While deciding a matter related to alleged violence occurred during the West Bengal Panchayat elections, a Division bench comprising of T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ., and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J., made it absolutely clear to the State Election Commission (SEC) and all the candidates, who have been declared elected that “their declaration of having been elected is subject to further orders to be passed by this Court in these writ petitions as well as in the connected matters.”
In the instant matter, a writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the decision of the SEC consequent upon the large-scale violence and electoral malpractice occurred during the West Bengal Panchayat Elections on 8-07-2023. The petitioners further prayed for direction upon (1) the SEC to conduct re-polling at the mentioned booths, (2) the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a FIR and conduct investigation into the large-scale violence and electoral malpractices committed during the entire election process, (3) an independent Central Agency to conduct forensic audit of the video footages of the polling booths as well as the forensic examination and audit of the ballot papers and other polling paraphernalia and (4) the Secretary, Department of Home and Hill Affairs, Government of West Bengal to forward a report to the Central Government with regard to the incidences of bomb blasts that occurred during the election.
The Court observed that the response from the SEC is not adequate, moreover, SEC is not not pro-active especially when the Court had been monitoring the entire process. The Court further considered the report submitted by the Central Forces highlighting certain instances regarding the non-cooperation of the SEC and order by SEC regarding re-polling in 698 booths.
The Court directed the SEC to reply as to “whether the said representation was considered and whether any exercise was conducted to examine as to whether re-polling has to be done in the various polling booths, which have been mentioned in the said representation”.
The Court observed that even after the declaration of election results, incidents of violence have erupted in several places and the State is not able to control it. The Court further observed that “the responsibility to ensure that there is no breach of peace lies with the State Government. If the State Government is not in a position to safeguard its citizens, then it is a very serious matter to be taken note of.”
The Court directed the SEC, the appropriate authority of the State Government and the appropriate authority of the respondent/Central Government to file their affidavits dealing with all the allegations of violence and held that thereafter the Court will consider what relief to be awarded to the petitioners.
The Court held that the “the conduct of the elections and the declaration of the results will be subject to the ultimate orders that may be passed in these writ petitions.” The Court directed the 822 companies of CAPFs/SAPs/IR Bns shall remain deployed in the State of West Bengal for a period of 10 days from the date on which the results are declared.
The Court observed that “the State Election Commission is duty bound to preserve all records concerning the election including the CCTV footages and it shall be solely responsible for the safety and security of all the records and the video footages” and directed the SEC to meticulously adhere to the same. The Court further directed the SEC as well as the State Government to immediately collect necessary information from all such educational institutions and where damage has been occurred to the property of the institutions during the polling and repaired and restored the same. The State Government to bear the cost for same at the first instance and after identification of the persons involved the amount shall be recovered from them.
The Court fixed the next date of the hearing on 20-07-2023.
[Farhad Mallick v. West Bengal State Election Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2012, order dated 12-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Majumdar Mr. Srijib Chakraorty Mr. Kaber Shankar Bose Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee Mr. Sayak Chakraborti Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Suryaneel Das Mr. Chiranjit Pal, Counsel for the Petitioners in (W.P.A.(P) 353 of 2023);
Mr. Shamik Bagchi Mr. Rameshar Sinha Ms. Salma S. Shah Mr. S. Hossain, Counsel for the Petitioner in (W.P.A.(P) 339 of 2023);
Ms. Priyanka S. Tibrewal, Counsel for the Petitioner in (W.P.A.(P) 354 of 2023);
Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Ld. A.G. Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. Amal Kumar Sen Ms. Sahima Sumi, Counsel for the State;
Mr. Ashoke Kumar Chakraborti, Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Billawadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. DSGI Mr. Tirtha Pati Acharya Mr. Ayanabha Raha, Counsel for the Union of India;
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonal Sinha Mr. Tarun Kumar Chatterjee Mr. Sujit Gupta Mr. Sayan Datta Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Counsel for the State Election Commission.
