LI Network
Published on: October 17, 2023 at 11:58 IST
The Calcutta High Court has declared that the State Election Commission is guilty of deliberately disregarding the court’s directives concerning the Panchayat elections. Despite clear court orders, the Commission failed to take proactive measures, resulting in delays and inadequacies in the deployment of central forces.
The court’s orders were issued in response to contempt petitions filed against several officials, including the State Election Commissioner, Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary of the Department of Home and Hill Affairs, and the Director General and Inspector General of Police in West Bengal. These petitions accused them of willfully and deliberately violating court orders related to deploying Central Forces for ensuring fair elections in the state.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Uday Kumar held that “we are of the clear view that there is deliberate violation of the order and direction passed by this Court and therefore this is a fit case where Rule NISI has to be issued in terms of Rule 19 of the Calcutta High Court contempt of Court Rules, 1975 to the State Election Commission, the respondent contemnor in CPAN 831 of 2023.”
The court expressed dissatisfaction with the State Election Commission’s compliance with its orders, especially in terms of timely actions and the deployment of Central Forces.
Court criticized the Commission for potentially providing misleading information and failing to cooperate with the Central Forces. It demanded proper responses from the State Election Commission and the state government concerning the allegations presented in the report submitted by the Inspector General, BSF.
The court considered initiating contempt proceedings by issuing a Rule NISI against those alleged to have committed contempt. Court highlighted the absence of proactive and diligent actions taken by the State Election Commission. The Commission was found to have failed in identifying sensitive areas, leading to delays and insufficient deployment of central forces.
Additionally, it was non-cooperative and did not provide essential information to the central forces while lacking an effective deployment plan. The Court criticized the Commission for attempting to feign compliance and making the court’s orders unworkable.
The Court stated, “This in our view is a clear case of shirking the responsibility or shifting the responsibility to a subordinate who will not be in a position to handle the situation. It was the duty of the State Election Commission to discuss with the respective DMs/ CPs/ SPs and draw up the deployment plan and forward the same to the Force Coordinator.
It is thereafter when the forces are deployed any minor adjustment or changes can always be made by the respective DMs/ CPs/ SPs in consultation with the senior officer who was in charge of that company which has been deployed to a particular District. This again in our view is a clear step which has made the order and direction in the writ petition unworkable.”
As a consequence of the State Election Commission’s deliberate violations of court orders, the Court initiated contempt proceedings against them, issuing a Rule NISI. The Commission was directed to explain its actions in the contempt petition.
The Court criticized the Commission for failing to be proactive in ensuring the court’s orders were effectively complied with, particularly in identifying sensitive polling booths.
In another case, the Court determined that there were insufficient grounds to initiate contempt proceedings against certain individuals from the state government. The Court decided to hear the contempt application on its merits without issuing a rule against these individuals.
