On June 20, the Supreme Court affirmed the Calcutta High Court’s order dated June 15, directing the West Bengal State Election Commission to requisition the deployment of Central Forces for all districts, in BJP Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Suvendu Adhikari’s writ petition.
The Supreme Court’s vacation bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, was hearing the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government’s plea challenging the Calcutta High Court’s June 15 order. The court observed that the tenor of the Calcutta High Court was to ensure free and fair elections in the state.
The court said, “The fact remains that the tenor of the order of the High Court is ultimately to ensure that free and fair election is conducted the entire State of West Bengal, since State is conducting election for local bodies on a single day and having regard to the volume of booths which are being set up. We find that the order of the HC does not call for any interference. SLP stands dismissed.” The vacation bench also orally asked the State Election Commission why it is bothered with the source of the security forces when the primary concern should be to conduct free and fair elections.
The West Bengal government’s counsel Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal contended that the Calcutta High Court had directed the requisition of forces within 48 hours, as if the state’s forces are incompetent to handle the situation.
However, the court pointed out that the West Bengal government has requisitioned forces from other states, indicating that the state itself feels that its forces are inadequate. The court further pointed out that the cost of deployment of Central Forces during the elections will be borne by the Government of India as per the June 15 order. The court said, “Holding elections cannot be a license for violence and HC has seen earlier instances of violence… elections cannot be accompanied by violence.. if persons are not able to file their nominations and if they are finished off while they are going to file it then, where is the free and fair election?”
Meanwhile, the State Election Commission’s counsel Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora highlighted two grievances. First, the State Election Commission cannot requisition the Central Forces as it is the State government’s domain; and second, the Central Forces have to be deployed on polling booths and not across the districts. Meenakshi Arora submitted, “Having done the assessment action, we will have the full requisition for forces. It will be for the State to decide from where to requisition the forces. We only have to request the State. And the direction to deploy the forces for the whole districts is not feasible.”
However, the court asked why the State Election is aggrieved as the direction is for increased security. The court said, “Why are you aggrieved with the order? Why are you concerned with from where the forces come? Whether the forces come from the State or Centre or neighbouring states, should you be concerned?” The court said, “You can be rest assured with this kind of the order. Having regard to the past history of the State and what is happening in the ground, the High Court entertained the matter. The directions are in the aid of the SEC and you cannot have any grievance.”
Suvendu Adhikari’s counsel Senior Advocate Harish Salve submitted that the State Election Commission is acting in a partisan manner, which is evident from the SLP filed supporting the West Bengal government’s stance. He highlighted that there are reports of widespread violence against prospective candidates which prevent them from filing nominations.
Harish Salve submitted, “The agenda is not genuine concern of deployment but the agenda is that we don’t get central forces…The State has no real grievance. They are embarrassed to say that they do not want central forces, because they would not be under their control.”
Calcutta High Court’s June 15 order
On June 15, the Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal State Election Commission to requisition the deployment of Central Forces for all districts within 48 hours of receipt of the court’s order for the panchayat elections. The court has further held that the Government of India will bear the cost for deployment and not the West Bengal government.
The court noted that a direction was passed on June 13, 2023, wherein the court directed the State Election Commission to review the state government’s assessment plan and requisition deployment of Central Forces in areas where there is an inadequacy of the state police.
The court referred to the past incidents of violence in the State of West Bengal and said, “Considering the fact that the total number of seats for which the election has to be conducted is more than 75000 and going by the past incidents wherein on more than 12 occasion the court had to intervene for directing deployment of central forces or transferring the cases to the National Investigating Agency, 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 court, in its June 15 verdict, noted that the State Election Commission had not requisitioned the deployment of Central Forces till the writ petition was filed and heard in the moving session. The court said that the State Election Commission’s actions should be considered to be a “deliberate violence of the order and direction” issued in the earlier writ petitions.
Furthermore, the petitioner Suvendu Adhikari referred to the report of the Enquiry Committee constituted by the National Human Rights Commission dated July 12, 2021. The report concerns the post-poll violence in the State of West Bengal after the Assembly Elections. The court noted, “The report is a very voluminous report which states that the situation in the State of West Bengal is manifestation of “Law of Ruler” instead of “Rule of Law”.”
The petitioner submitted that the little efforts of the State machinery to prevent, control or rectify the violent incidents indicates a larger picture of organised violence by supporters of the ruling party in retribution against the persons who desire to support the other party. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that while some organs of the State government remained mute spectators, others were complicit.
The court noted, “Further, the report states that most of the violent incidents included murder, rape, molestation, assault, vandalism, looting, dispensation, arson and extortion, threat and intimidation and pertinently they were neither sporadic nor random instead they targeted specific person and that there are large gaps in the cases registered by the police as compared to the compliant received by the Committee of the NHRC.”
The court further notes, “Further, the report states that the poor and common people have lost faith in police. Further, it is stated in the report that the spread of violence shows pernicious politico-bureaucratic-criminal nexus.”
The petitioner further places reliance on an NGO’s fact-finding committee report on the post-poll violence in the State of West Bengal, wherein it is stated, “more than 25 persons including women were murdered, over 15000 incidents of violence took place, 7000 women were molested, 16 districts out of 26 districts of the State were badly affected due to violence.” However, the West Bengal government’s counsel said that the report cannot be relied upon and admitted as evidence.
The court held that the State Election Commission had not taken appreciable steps as per the court’s orders in earlier writ petitions and no effective steps had been taken to identify the sensitive areas from the law and order point of view. The court said, “we are of the view that waiting any longer will cause more damage to the situation and will not aid in protecting the purity of the election process.” Thus, the court directed the State Election Commission to requisition Central Forces within 48 hours of the court’s verdict for all districts of West Bengal.
