The West Bengal Panchayat Elections have been marred with controversies, from alleged violence preventing Opposition parties’ candidates from filing nominations to alleged collusion between the State Election Commission and the ruling Trinamool Congress.
On June 26, the Calcutta High Court directed the State Election Commission to probe the undue removal of nominations from the list of validly nominated candidates. The court said, “no person has a vested right to be elected uncontested.” The court directed the commission to redress each grievance by June 28 and ensure that validly nominated candidates are able to contest elections.
The court said that it could not “overlook the fact that instead of the Commission, it is the State who is vociferously opposing the prayer of the petitioners.” The court said, “The acts and actions of the Commission is under question. During the course of election, the Returning Officer is under the direct control and supervision of the Commission.”
The court observed that the Trinamool Congress-led (TMC) State government is opposing the petitioners, indicating that the ruling TMC does not wish to face a contest in the elections and is interested in winning the elections uncontested. The court said, “The fact that the State is opposing the petition goes to show that the State administration does not want to face the contest and is interested to win the elections uncontested.
The court held, “Seats where there are no opposing contestants will certainly go uncontested, but seats where there are intending contestants, the Commission ought to ensure that the seat is filled up only on contest and not uncontested.”
The court’s single-judge bench comprising Justice Amrita Sinha was a writ petition filed by candidates of the Rashtriya Secular Majlis Party (RSMP), contesting from Bhangore-II block, South 24 Parganas district, alleging that their names were deleted from the list of selected candidates even though their names appeared on the commission’s website till June 19. The petitioners’ contended that they would not be able to contest elections due to the wrongful removal of names from the list.
It was submitted before the court that the delay, if any, in filing nominations was beyond the control of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the delay was “deliberately caused by the members and supporters of the ruling political party with the help and assistance of the State administration.” Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the State Election Commission has failed to maintain a peaceful atmosphere for nominations to be filed.
The petitioners submitted, “There is no deliberate, wilful or intentional error, delay or laches on the part of the petitioners in submitting their nominations within the prescribed time period.” The petitioners contended that the respondents, being responsible for the wrong, cannot be allowed to take advantage of the situation.
The court observed that “quite a few litigations” have been filed before the Calcutta High Court in connection to the West Bengal Panchayat Elections 2023. The court further noted that in a number of petitions filed before the court, the prospective candidates were prevented and obstructed from submitting their nominations. The court noted that the principal allegation in such cases is that force and violence were used to prevent the prospective candidates from filing nominations.
It was contended that the petitioners overcame all hurdles “set up by the members and supporters of the ruling party,” and reached the nomination centre on the scheduled date to file their nominations. The court noted that while the date and time mentioned in the acknowledgement receipt, it is beyond the prescribed time schedule fixed by the commission.
However, the court observed that the official accepted the nomination papers and scrutinised the same to be found in order. Furthermore, the court noted that the names were published in the list of nominated candidates and that the same remained in the list till the last date of withdrawal. The court said, “Even though none of the petitioners withdrew their candidature, but for undisclosed reasons, the names of the petitioners did not figure in the final list of contesting candidates.”
The court said, “In such a situation, will the members and supporters of the ruling party, who prevented and obstructed the prospective candidates from filing their nominations within the scheduled time period be entitled to reap benefit of their acts and actions? Will the same not amount to tolerating the illegal/arbitrary action on the part of the ruling disposition?”
The court added, “Why will the candidates who unleash fear and unrest in the society be permitted to steal a march over the candidates who fail to match their terror tactics? Will the same not amount to interfering with the free and fair election process which is the mandate of the Constitution and the statutory law?”
The court said, “It is true that it is not possible for the writ court to adjudicate as to whether the petitioners were indeed forcefully prevented/obstructed from filing their nominations within the prescribed time period, but at the same time, what is drawing the attention of the Court is the series of litigations in respect of a couple of constituencies with uniform allegation of violence, assault, arson, murder/rape threat etc. preventing/obstructing in filing the nominations. The candidates have to rush to Court to obtain order to permit them to file their nominations.”
The court observed that from the date State Election Commission notified the Panchayat Elections in the State i.e. June 9 and till the last date to withdraw nominations i.e. June 20, there have been “several instances of wide spread violence, political unrest leading to loss of several lives.” The court acknowledged that the legal position is that once the election process commences, the court ought to adopt a “hands-off policy” and exercise self-restraint in entertaining petitions concerning election matters, however, the court asks, “but to what extent.”
The court states, “Can the Constitutional Court keep its eyes shut when there are definite instances in support of the submission that there were genuine and valid reasons for not being able to file the nomination papers by the prospective candidates within the prescribed time period? Will that not amount to polluting the free and fair election process? Can the same be taken as proper democracy? Will the same not amount to infringement on the statutory right of a candidate to contest an election?”
The court noted that there is no plausible reason why a prospective candidate would deliberately delay in filing their nomination, despite submitting a deposit, knowing it would lead to cancellation of their candidature. However, the court further said, that a contesting candidate, on the contrary, may resort to unfair practices to get the nomination of their rival cancelled to win the election uncontested.
The court said that the candidate’s name cannot be dropped abruptly from the list of selected candidates merely because their opponent has filed an objection. The court said that it is for the Returning Officer to apply their mind and make a conscious decision whether there was a genuine reason why the prospective candidate did not submit their nomination within the prescribed time limit. The court said, “The Commission being a statutory authority is expected to act in an unbiased manner in accordance with the statute.”
The court said that a Constitutional Court cannot be taken to be so “powerless” that it does not rise to the occasion to prevent the perpetration of injustice. The court said that it should not just strive to build up confidence among people about the rule of law, but also ensure that the rule of law is not misused by “powerful people” to “trample the oppressed.” The court said, “People in power tend to overpower and rule the people and they do not want to lose their power come what may.”
The court said, “In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the Commission is directed to verify each and every allegation separately and if it appears to the Commission that the names of the intending candidates have been wrongly removed from the list of contesting candidates, then steps shall be taken by the Commission positively by 28th June, 2023 to redress the issue and make sure that the validly nominated candidates are able to contest the election and face the electors.”
Comments