| Date of Judgment | 20TH June 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Special Leave Petition (C) Nos 12294/2023 |
| Appellant | State of West Bengal and Ors |
| Respondent | Suvendu Adhikary |
| Bench | Justice B.V. NagarathnaJustice Manoj Misra |
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The West Bengal State Election Commission (WBSEC) announced that the Panchayat elections in the State were to be held on July 8, 2023.
- During the process of filing of the nomination papers, numerous campaigners of the Opposition Parties, reportedly, were dammed violently by the original workers of the ruling party in the State Legislature, the Trinamool Congress. PIL
- Seeing the position of violence and atrocities committed against the campaigners of the Opposition Parties and the police inactivity, Suvendu Adhikari, a BJP MLA and the Leader of Opposition filed a Public Interest Action in the Calcutta High Court seeking directions to emplace para-military forces in all politically sensitive zones of the State to insure free and fair choices.
- A Division Bench conforming of Chief JusticeT.S. Sivagananam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court took note of the matter and ordered the State Election Commission to identify the politically sensitive regions within 24 Hours.
- The Commission submitted that it would bear some days in order to assess and identify the politically sensitive zones from law- and- order point of view and emplace thepara-military forces.
- Both the Government of West Bengal and the West Bengal State Election Commission challenged the forenamed order of the Calcutta High Court in the Supreme Court of India.
ISSUES
Grounded on the issues raised by both the parties, the following legal questions were formed
- Was the High Court correct in issuing a mask order for deployment of Central Forces in all the sections of the State?
- Was the time given to the State Election Commission sufficient to conduct a primary to assess the sensitive regions of the State?
ARGUMENTS
Appellant:-
- Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the Government of West Bengal, submitted that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court went wrong in issuing a mask order to emplace Central para-military forces in all the sections of the State. He also stated that however there was sufficient time before the date of election (8th July) the High Court directed for deployment within a short span of 48 Hours. He said that directions passed by the High Court were made in haste, indeed before the primary disquisition by the Commission was over. He also mentioned that involving multiple situations of police officers would affect in nothing but chaos and confusion.
- He also stated that there may arise a need of for fresh police forces for the conduct of free and fair choices on 08.07.2023 and also for all the election related processes till the forenamed date, still it’s the discretion of the State Government.In this case, the impugned orders of the High Court had therefore elided the optional powers of the State.
- Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the West Bengal State Election Commission, submitted that it’s for the State Election to assess the perceptivity of the bean cells. She stated that the PIL in the High Court was filed on 9th June, just a day after the pates were notified, without staying for the way to be taken by the Commission.
- She also appertained to a 2018 judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it was held that the involved parties via suitable representations could also approach the Election Commission of India to attend their grievances. Therefore, she submitted that the directions of the High Court to West Bengal State Election Commission wasn’t needed at each and was well beyond the governance of the learned Court.
- Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, also appearing for the West Bengal State Election Commission, stated that the High Court was also wrong in passing strictures against the SEC as if the Commission wasn’t doing its designated duty. Therefore, he supplicated to clean the gratuitous reflections made by the High Court from the final judgements.
Respondent:-
- Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing on behalf of Suvendu Adhikari, submitted before the Court that the manner in which the West Bengal State Election Commission was acting was veritably much prejudiced in nature, and also it’s relatively apparent from way the Commission had filed its Special Leave solicitation that it was easily favouring and supporting the Government of West Bengal.
- He also supported the order of the High Court (dated 15.06.2023) by submitting that it wasn’t the first time that the High Court had issued such a direction. In earlier occasions as well, the High Court had issued analogous directions to maintain free and fair choices in the State. It was also argued since the State Election Commission had failed to misbehave with the Court’s 13.06.2023 dated order, therefore the consequent order was passed.
JUDGEMENT
The Court appertained to its former judgements in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India to stress upon the significance of an independent body
The Court also reckoned upon its former judgement in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain to signify that in a country like India it’s veritably important to conduct free and fair elections.
While dismissing the solicitation, the Court took note that the West Bengal State Election Commission had failed to apply the former order of the Calcutta High Court with due industriousness, and upheld the order of the High Court as it had no other option, keeping in mind the once incidents of electoral violence than to order the deployment para military force. The Apex Court also noted that the neither the Government of West Bengal nor the State Election Commission should have any problem with the deployment of the Central Forces as the entire cost were to be borne by the Central Government.
REFERENCES
This article is written by Tuneer Pal of Heritage Law College, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
