| Date of Judgment | 20th June, 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12294 of 2023 |
| Appellant | The State Of West Bengal and Ors. |
| Respondent | Suvendu Adhikari and Ors. |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Panchayat elections in the State were scheduled for July 8, 2023, according to the West Bengal State Election Commission (WBSEC). The deadline for submitting nominations was June 15. The nominations could no longer be withdrawn as of June 20.
Numerous candidates from opposition parties allegedly experienced physical obstruction during the nomination process from Trinamool Congress local workers, the state legislature’s ruling party.
Suvendu Adhikari, a BJP MLA and the Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal State Legislative Assembly, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Calcutta High Court requesting directions to deploy paramilitary forces in all politically sensitive zones of the SLA due to the level of violence and atrocities committed against the candidates of the various Opposition Parties and the worsening condition of law and order in the State amidst police inaction.
In a decision dated June 13, 2023, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprised of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagananam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, took note of the situation
and ordered the State Election Commission to identify the politically sensitive areas in the State and deploy Central paramilitary forces within 24 hours.
The Commission said that it would take a few days to evaluate, identify, and deploy paramilitary personnel in politically sensitive areas from a law-and-order perspective.
In response to another PIL filed by Suvendu Adhikari, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, consisting of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagananam and Justice Uday Kumar, took note of the non-compliance with its previously dated order, and stated that taking more time would not help in the “purity of the election process’ ‘. On June 15, 2023, they ordered the State Election Commission to deploy Central para-military forces in all the districts of the Central Government must cover all expenses associated with the deployment of the Central Forces, according to the Court.
The West Bengal State Election Commission and the West Bengal Government both appealed the aforementioned Calcutta High Court ruling to India’s Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Was it proper for the High Court to authorise the deployment of Central Forces across all of the State’s districts?
2. Was the time allotted to the State Election Commission enough to perform a preliminary evaluation of the State’s sensitive areas?
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANTS
Speaking on behalf of the Government of West Bengal, senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal argued that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court erred by ordering the deployment of Central paramilitary forces in all of the State’s districts without even considering the sensitivity of the area or the level of the State Police’s capability to handle the situation. He said that even though there was enough of time before the election (8 July), the High Court
ordered deployment to happen within only 48 hours. He said that the High Court’s orders, which were issued before the Commission’s initial inquiry was complete, were hastily prepared. Additionally, he said that engaging officers at various levels of the police force would only lead to turmoil and confusion. He also maintained that there was precedence for such an occurrence happening in the State when CRPF personnel opened fire on a gathering during the State Legislative Assembly Elections in 2021, killing four people.
Additionally, he said that additional police forces might be required for the conduct of free and fair elections on July 8, 2023, as well as for all election-related activities up until that date. However, it is up to the State Government’s discretion whether to request additional police forces from neighbouring States or the Central Government after consulting the State Election Commission. Thus, in this instance, the assailed decisions of the High Court had limited the State’s latitude.
For the West Bengal State Election Commission, senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora argued that it is up to the state election to determine how sensitive the polling places are. She said that the High Court PIL was filed on June 9—just one day after the votes were announced—without waiting for the Commission to take any action.
She further cited a 2018 ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which said that the parties involved might also contact the Election Commission of India to address their complaints through appropriate submissions. She claimed that the High Court’s instructions to the West Bengal State Election Commission were unnecessary and well beyond of the learned Court’s purview.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, who is representing the West Bengal State Election Commission, said that the High Court erred by imposing strictures on the SEC and acting as though the Commission was not carrying out its mandate. He thus requested that the High Court’s pointless comments be removed from the final rulings.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS
Suvendu Adhikari’s representative, senior Advocate Harish Salve, argued before the court that the West Bengal State Election Commission was acting in a very partisan manner and that it was clear from the way the Commission filed its Special Leave Petition that it was supporting and favouring the West Bengali government.
He said that the High Court had previously given a similar directive in order to support the ruling it made on June 15, 2023. The High Court had previously given similar instructions to maintain free and fair elections in the State. Additionally, it was asserted that the ruling was given because the State Election Commission disobeyed the court’s order with the date of 13.06.2023.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court of India’s Division Bench, which was composed of Hon’ble Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, found this to be a rare and exceptional case where it was noteworthy to note that members of various political parties, who are ideologically on opposite sides of the political spectrum, voiced a common concern and requested very similar reliefs when they filed their respective Writ Petitions at the High Court.
The West Bengal State Election Commission and the Government of West Bengal filed petitions contesting the decisions of the Calcutta High Court. (dated 13.06.2023 and 15.06.2023.)
To emphasise the significance of an independent body “insulated from political and/or executive interference” to conduct free and fair elections in the nation, the Court cited its earlier rulings in T. N. Seshan v. Union of India.
The Court also cited its earlier ruling in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain to emphasise how crucial it is to hold free and fair elections that are “not rigged and manipulated” in order to determine the popular will of the nation’s legal residents and to maintain the confidence of the general public in the democratic institutions.
The Calcutta High Court’s previous order was not implemented by the West Bengal State Election Commission with due diligence, and the Court noted this while dismissing the petition. The Court upheld the High Court’s order because it had no other choice, given the history of electoral violence, other than to order the State Election Commission to send Central paramilitary forces to all of West Bengal’s districts in order to maintain law and order. The Central Government was to bear the full expense of deploying and controlling the Central Forces, so neither the Government of West Bengal nor the State Election Commission should have any issues with their deployment.
When the respondents had a remedy available where they may also make a legitimate representation before a relevant forum first as provided by the Apex Court in its prior order, the Supreme Court questioned whether the High Court’s method of giving such directives was correct.
The Supreme Court ruled that given the impending Panchayat elections in the State and the little amount of time available, the High Court’s directives were appropriate under the situation.
REFRENCES
This Article is written by Kritika Goyal of Trinity Institute of Innovations in Professional Studies, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments