WB Panchayat Elections| Calcutta HC Directs Deployment Of Central Forces, Holds Mandamus Can’t Be Issued To Extend Period For Filing Nominations
The Calcutta High Court while dealing with PILs filed by Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari with regard to the upcoming Panchayat Elections in the State of West Bengal has yesterday pronounced its judgment holding that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing SEC (State Election Commission) to extend the period for filing nominations.
The Court also directed the deployment of central forces to work with the police force of the State for the purpose of ensuring free and fair elections.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed, “… this Court holds that a Mandamus cannot be issued at the intermediate stage directing the Commission to extend the period for filing nominations. … It is, however, observed that the discretion to extend the time for completion of election under proviso to Section 43(1) lies entirely upon the Commission and this Court leaves such matter to be decided by the Commission in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore … we are of the view that the State Election Commission should and shall requisition the deployment of central forces to work in tandem with the police force of the State of West Bengal to ensure free and fair elections.”
The Bench took note of the fact that the total number of seats for which the election has to be conducted is more than 75000 and on more than 12 occasions, the court had to intervene for directing the deployment of central forces or transferring the cases to the National Investigating Agency.
Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar and Advocate Lokenath Chatterjee appeared for Suvendu Adhikari, Advocate Koustav Bagchi appeared for Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury while Senior Advocates Jayanta Mitra and Jishnu Saha appeared for SEC, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay and Government Pleader Anirban Ray appeared for the State, and ASG Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty appeared for the Union of India.
The writ petitions were filed as PILs (Public Interest Litigations) with a prayer for a writ of mandamus to set aside the notification issued by the SEC notifying the elections for the Panchayats and issue the same afresh after implementation of the demands made by the writ petitioner. The petitioners also sought the deployment of central forces from the date of filing nomination till the declaration of results for a direction upon the Election Commissioner to ensure that the candidates are permitted to file their nominations.
The Court had earlier directed the SEC to fix a reasonable time for the candidates to file their nominations on the ground that the time fixed by it was inadequate in nature. It also directed the Commission to take a decision on the demand of the petitioners to deploy central forces in the State during the election.
The High Court in view of the above prayers noted, “… alteration of the date fixed for election cannot be done by the Commission in exercise of its powers under proviso to subsection 1 of Section 43. However, if the Commission, for sufficient reasons, considers to extend the date of completion of any election without interfering with the date fixed for holding elections under Section 42, such power of extension of various stages of election other than interfering with the date of election can be exercised by the Commission under the said proviso.”
The Court further noted that any action taken or orders passed by authorities vested with the power to conduct an election can be made the subject matter of judicial review on the ground of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of the power of such authorities if such an approach does not amount to calling in question an election. However, it said that the invocation of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the conclusion of the election if the subject matter of challenge amounts to calling in question an election.
“It is also well settled that a Mandamus cannot be issued to compel a statutory authority to act dehors the provisions of the relevant statute. Therefore, this Court cannot direct acceptance of nomination papers either by the Commission or permit filing of nominations before the concerned District Magistrate as prayed for by the writ petitioners. … this court is of the considered view that persons who do not suffer any disqualification for appointment as Presiding Officers and Polling Officers as specifically provided under Section 6 of the 1994 Act read with Section 28(1) of the 2003 Act can be appointed as Presiding Officers and Polling Officers”, held the Court.
With regard to the circular issued by the competent authority of the State, the Court directed the SEC not to entrust to a civic volunteer any duties dehors the said circular and that in case the Commission decides to engage the civic volunteers for discharging any duties for the conduct of the Panchayat Elections, only such duties as indicated in the said circular can be entrusted to such volunteers.
“It goes without saying that the State Election Commission should undertake all steps to ensure that the safety and security of the polling officers and polling personnel. All preventive measures shall be taken by the Commission and standard operating procedure can be devised to be implemented in all the polling stations throughout the state. In the event if in a particular polling station central force has not been deployed then it shall be the responsibility of the state police to ensure the safety and security of the polling officers and polling personnel at such polling stations”, said the Court.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the SEC will ensure the safety and security of the lives of the polling personnel and polling officers and that in the event of any complaint being brought to the notice of the Commission, swift action be taken.
Cause Title- Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury v. The West Bengal State Election Commission and Others
