The pleas filed against the West Bengal State Election Commission, seeking various actions such as re-conducting elections in uncontested areas, extending nomination filing dates, and removing the State Election Commissioner, have been dismissed by the Calcutta High Court.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya ruled that the prayer to remove the Election Commissioner could not be entertained. The court emphasized that the Election Commissioner is an independent constitutional body entrusted with the powers of overseeing, directing, and controlling the election process. These powers are granted under Article 243 of the Indian Constitution, in conjunction with the provisions of the West Bengal State Election Commission Act, 1994.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, filed writ petitions as public interest litigation. They are requesting the court to issue a writ of mandamus to declare the West Bengal Panchayat Election of 2023 as void. They argue that there has been a non-compliance with basic constitutional principles and statutory requirements necessary for ensuring free and fair elections.
Additionally, they are seeking a directive for an independent agency to investigate the filing of nominations by candidates from the ruling party within an unusually short time frame of two days, which included nominations by individuals who are not currently in India. The petitioners are also requesting the court to declare the present State Election Commissioner as incapable of conducting the election independently and to have them removed from their position, to be replaced by an independent individual. The petitioners have included other related requests for relief, which are incidental and supplementary to their main claim.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that in many cases, candidates were prevented from filing nominations. They pointed out that a person from Saudi Arabia managed to file a nomination, and nominations were not being fully completed. Moreover, several individuals who had filed nominations were threatened to withdraw them. Due to these irregularities in specific areas, the petitioner requested the elections to be halted in those areas, while suggesting conducting elections in other places.
He also mentioned that despite the Writ Court's direction to provide police protection for filing nominations, those nominations were rejected for being filed after 3 P.M., without considering the circumstances of the candidates being prevented from filing nominations and seeking court intervention. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the decisions cited by the Election Commission and the State, which are based on the Supreme Court's rulings, are not applicable to Panchayat elections as they are governed by the West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Advocate General representing the State argued that the principle of non-interference by the court in the election of the 3-tier Panchayat system is similar to that of parliamentary and Legislative Assembly elections. They referred to Article 243-O of the Constitution, which imposes a constitutional bar similar to Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The Advocate General supported their argument by citing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Boddula Krishnaiah & Anr. v. State Election Commissioner, A.P (1996) 3 SCC 416.
Observations of the Court:
The bench noted that in the case of Dipankar Rit v State of West Bengal WPA (P) 250 of 2023, the court had previously determined that it is not within its purview to intervene in the election process, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission (SEC). This decision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in special leave petitions filed by both the SEC and the State of West Bengal, thereby establishing its conclusive status.
The Bench stated that based on previous legal decisions, it is not within the Court's jurisdiction to interfere in election matters through writ jurisdiction. The Court referred to the case of N.P. Ponnuswami and others v Returning Officer (1952), where it was held that election interference through writ jurisdiction can have serious consequences. Disputes regarding the validity of elections should be raised through an election petition before a special tribunal at the appropriate stage, rather than at an intermediate stage before any court.
The Court also mentioned the case of West Bengal State Election Commission and others v Communist Party of India (2018), which emphasized that election-related dispute, should be postponed until after the elections are over to avoid unnecessary delays. Any irregularities during the ongoing election should be addressed through an election petition filed before the relevant tribunal. Furthermore, the Court observed that individual candidates who had grievances had already approached the Court by filing writ petitions, seeking various remedies such as setting aside the rejection of nominations, accepting nominations, deferring the election, and other reliefs. The Court acknowledged that the writ court had already considered the factual and legal aspects of these petitions and issued orders accordingly. Therefore, the requested prayers in this matter could not be granted.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta HC rejected the requested prayers and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Ujjwal Trivedi v The State Of West Bengal and Ors with Save Democracy And Ors v The State Of West Bengal And Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya
Case no: WPA (P)/306/2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ld. Jr. Standing Counsel
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
