Clear Case Of Shirking Responsibility On Subordinate: Calcutta HC Holds State Election Commission Guilty Of Deliberate Violation Of Court Orders In Panchayat Elections
The Calcutta High Court held that the State Election Commission had violated the court's orders related to the conduct of Panchayat elections. The Court said despite clear directives, the Commission did not take proactive steps, leading to delays and inadequacies in the deployment of central forces. The court had issued a series of orders in response to contempt petitions filed against the State Election Commissioner, Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, Department of Home and Hill Affairs, and Director General and Inspector General of Police, West Bengal. The contempt petitions alleged willful and deliberate violation of court orders related to the deployment of Central Forces for conducting free and fair elections in the state.
A Division Bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Uday Kumar held that, “we are of the clear view that there is deliberate violation of the order and direction passed by this Court and therefore this is a fit case where Rule NISI has to be issued in terms of Rule 19 of the Calcutta High Court contempt of Court Rules, 1975 to the State Election Commission, the respondent contemnor in CPAN 831 of 2023.”
The court had expressed dissatisfaction with the State Election Commission's compliance with its orders, particularly in terms of timely actions and deployment of Central Forces.
The court had also criticized the State Election Commission for potential misleading information and lack of cooperation with Central Forces. It had demanded proper responses from the State Election Commission and the state government regarding the allegations made in the report submitted by the Inspector General, BSF. The court considered issuing a Rule NISI (an order to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated) against the alleged contemnors.
Advocate Soumya Majumder appeared for Petitioners and Senior Advocate P. S. Raman appeared for the Respondents.
The Court highlighted the lack of proactive and diligent steps taken by the State Election Commission. The Court found that despite court orders, the Commission had not identified sensitive areas, leading to delays and inadequate deployment of central forces.
The State Election Commission was found to be non-cooperative, not providing necessary information to the central forces, and failing to create an effective deployment plan. The Court criticized the Commission's attempts to feign compliance and make the orders unworkable. The Court added, “This in our view is a clear case of shirking the responsibility or shifting the responsibility on a subordinate who will not be in a position to handle the situation. It was the duty of the State Election Commission to discuss with the respective DMs/ CPs/ SPs and draw up the deployment plan and forward the same to the Force Coordinator. It is thereafter when the forces are deployed any minor adjustment or changes can always be made by the respective DMs/ CPs/ SPs in consultation with the senior officer who was in charge of that company which has been deployed to a particular District. This again in our view is a clear step which has made the order and direction in the writ petition unworkable.”
The Court initiated contempt proceedings against the State Election Commission due to its deliberate violations of court orders. Rule NISI was issued against the State Election Commission, directing it to explain its actions in the contempt petition. The Court said, “the response given by SEC thoroughly lacking and in spite of various observations made in the orders passed in the writ petition as well as the earlier writ petition, we find that the State Election Commission was not pro-active to ensure the effective compliance of the order and direction issued by the Court. The identification of the sensitive booths was directed to be done by the State Election Commission and there is no other way out and the State Election Commission could not have delegated the same to any other subordinate authority. This again is a clear act of contempt.”
In another case the Court did not find sufficient grounds to initiate contempt proceedings against the named individuals from the state government. The Court decided to hear the contempt application on its merits without issuing rule against these individuals.
Cause Title: Suvendu Adhikari and Anr. v. Rajiva Sinha, State Election Commissioner
Click here to read/download Judgment