Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suvendu Adhikari And Anr vs Rajiva Sinha on 5 September, 2023
05.09.2023
Item Nos.1 to 5
Ct. No.1
PG/KS
CPAN/831/2023
SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND ANR.
VS
RAJIVA SINHA, STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
In
WPA(P)/250/2023
SRI DIPANKAR RIT
VS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
In
WPA(P)/286/2023
ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY
VS
THE WEST BENGAL
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS.
In
WPA(P)/287/2023
SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND ANR.
VS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
In
WPA(P)/301/2023
SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND ANR.
VS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
With
CPAN/841/2023
ABU HASAN KHAN CHOUDHURY
VS
RAJIVA SINHA
With
CPAN/905/2023
DIPANKAR RIT
VS
RAJIVA SINHA AND ORS.
With
CPAN/907/2023
SANMOY BANERJEE
VS
RAJIVA SINHA AND ORS.
With
CPAN/948/2023
In
CPAN/831/2023
In
WPA(P)/301/2023
SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND ANR.
VS
RAJIVA SINHA STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
AND ORS.
2
Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, ld. Senior Advocate,
Mr. Soumya Majumder,
Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose,
Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee,
Mr. Suryaneel Das,
Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra,
Mr. Chiranjit Pal
..for the Petitioners in
(CPAN 831 of 2023 and CPAN 948 of 2023)
Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee,
Mr. Sukanta Ghosh,
Mr. Arghya Chatterjee
..for the Petitioners in
(CPAN 905 of 2023 and CPAN 907 of 2023)
Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee,
Mr. Debapriya Majumder,
..for the Petitioner in CPAN 841 of 2023.
Mr. P.S. Raman, ld. Senior Advocate,
Mr. Kishore Datta, ld. Senior Advocate,
Mr. Jishnu Sinha, ld. Senior Advocate,
Ms. Sonal Sinha,
Ms. Sumita Shaw,
Mr. Tarun Kr. Chatterjee,
Mr. Sujit Gupta,
Mr. Sayan Datta,
Mr. Soumen Chatterjee
..for W.B. State Election
Commission.
Mr. Ashoke Kumar Chakrabarti, learned ASG,
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, learned DSGI,
Mr. Ayanabha Raha,
Mr. Tirtha Pati Acharya
..for the Union of India.
Mr. S.N. Mookerjee, learned Advocate General,
Mr. Anirban Ray, learned G.P.
Mr. Piyush Agarwal,
Mr. Arka Nag,
Ms. Utsha Dasgupta,
Ms. Shrivalli Kajaria,
Ms. Riddhi Jain
..for the State.
3
1. We have heard Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned
senior advocate appearing for the contempt
applicants.
2. After elaborately referring to the factual matrix as
referred to in the report of the Inspector General,
B.S.F., the Force Coordinator, and the response
given by the State Election Commission to the
various paragraphs of the report of the Inspector
General and also certain paragraphs of the
exception filed by the State Government to the
report of the Inspector General, the learned senior
advocate referred to Rule 19 of the Calcutta High
Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975. Referring
to Rule 19 of the said Rules, it is submitted that
the Rule contemplates three scenarios, the first of
which is that the Court may issue Rule Nisi or
summarily reject the petition or make such order
thereupon as thought fit.
3. It is the submission of the learned senior advocate
that the orders passed by this Court in this
contempt application earlier were in the nature of
third scenario or in other words, the third limb of
Rule 19 and presently the Court has to consider
and issue Rule as per the first scenario provided
4
for under Rule 19. In this regard, the learned
senior advocate referred to Form No.1, Appendix I
to the Rules, which is the form of Rule Nisi.
4. After referring to the wordings in the Form and
also pointing out the distinction between Form
No.1 and Form No.2, which pertains to issuance of
Rule Nisi for criminal contempt pursuant to a
report by the Advocate General to the Court, it is
submitted that the applicants have thus far
pointed out the various infractions, which have
been committed by the State Election
Commission, the deliberate non-adherence to the
directions issued by the Court from time to time
and more importantly, the gross delay in giving
the deployment plan and identification of sensitive
booths to the Force Coordinator. It is further
submitted that the State Election Commission had
sent communication to the Force Coordinator to
collect the information of sensitive booths from the
District Magistrates, the Commissioners of Police
and the Superintendents of Police, when the
direction issued by the Court was to the State
Election Commission to identify the sensitive
booths.
5. Further in the response given by the State
Election Commission, it has been stated that the
field level deployment will be done with the
5
consultation of the District Magistrates,
Commissioners of Police and Superintendents of
Police. Thus, it is submitted that the stand taken
in the response of the State Election Commission
will clearly show that their action was in the
nature of make-believe compliance and not
effective compliance of the orders and directions
issued by the Court from time to time, which
conduct of the State Election Commission is
contumacious.
6. Further by referring to the other paragraphs of the
response filed by State Election Commission, it is
submitted that the denial made in the response is
absolutely vague and it tantamounts to saying as
if nothing has happened for initiation of contempt.
7. Taking strong objection to the exception filed by
the State Government more particularly in
paragraph 11 of the exception, it is submitted that
the State Government could not have stated that
the deployment of CAPFs/SAPs had been
undertaken pursuant to the orders passed by the
Court from time to time and the purported
challenge faced by the IG, BSF in implementing
the orders passed by the Court have no relevance
for the purpose of the report. It is submitted that
such a statement could not have been made by
6
the Sate Government and ought not to have been
made.
8. Further, it is submitted that in C.P.A.N.831 of
2023 as well as in C.P.A.N. 948 of 2023, various
specific instances have been highlighted and these
instances have to be dealt with for which affidavits
are required to be filed by the respondents/alleged
contemnors.
9. Therefore, it is submitted that once the Court
finds a prima facie case of violation, Rule Nisi has
to be issued.
10. To explain the concept of Rule 19 of the Calcutta
High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975,
reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Heinz
India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Glaxoo Smithkline
Consumer Helathcare Limited reported in 2005
SCC OnLine Cal 429.
11. With the above submissions, the learned senior
advocate concluded for the day and sought leave
to present a few more judgments on the next
hearing date.
12. As requested, list the matters on 21 st September,
2023.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(UDAY KUMAR, J.)
