Calcutta HC orders issuance of contempt rule against state poll commission

PTI, KOLKATA, OCT 13, 2023 : The Calcutta High Court on Friday ordered the issuance of a contempt rule against the West Bengal State Election Commission (SEC) over the deployment of central forces for holding free and fair rural body elections in the state. 

The panchayat elections were held on July 8. "We are of the clear view that there is a 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," the court directed. 

A division bench presided by Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam directed that a contempt rule be issued to the respondent contemnor. Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Assembly and BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari had filed the contempt petition alleging willful and deliberate violation by State Election Commissioner Rajiva Sinha of the court's order of June 15, in which the SEC was directed to deploy the required number of central forces in all districts for conducting free and fair rural polls. 

The court noted that the SEC had requisitioned only 22 companies, one for each district, which was inadequate. On June 21, the court held that the order and direction had not been complied with in letter and spirit. 

The bench directed the SEC to requisition a sufficient number of central forces within 24 hours for deployment in all the districts and that the number of companies be not less than the forces that were requisitioned for the 2013 panchayat election in the state, which was 82,000 personnel. 

It directed that the number of companies had to be more than the number of districts since voters would have increased between 2013 and 2023. Directing the SEC to independently assess the requirement, the court had observed that the commission should be honest, bearing in mind that it has a constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections and to preserve the purity of the entire election process. 

The bench had said that on perusal of a report submitted by the Inspector General, BSF, who was the force coordinator for the central forces, found very serious allegations had been made against the SEC and that it was stated that the support and response of the commission and the state authorities was on a number of occasions was wanting. 

Holding that the requisition of 22 companies of central forces at the first instance by the SEC cannot be construed to be compliance with the order "as the commission was fully aware that the 22 companies of central forces will be grossly inadequate to take care of the panchayat elections in the entire state," the bench said, adding, 

"This again is an act of contempt." Maintaining that the SEC should have drawn up a deployment plan well in advance and shared the same with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the force coordinator, the court said, "This in our view would clearly show that there has been every attempt to make the order and direction issued in the writ petition unworkable." 

The court said the SEC stated that the deployment was to be done in consultation with the district magistrates, commissioners of police, and superintendents of police. "This in our view is a clear case of shirking the responsibility or shifting the responsibility on a subordinate who will not be in a position to handle the situation," the bench, also comprising Justice Uday Kumar, observed. T

he bench said it was the duty of the commission to discuss with the respective district magistrates, CPs and SPs draw up the deployment plan, and forward the same to the force coordinator. 

Holding that the SEC was "not pro-active" to ensure the effective compliance of the order and direction issued by the court, the bench said that identification of sensitive booths was directed to be done by the commission. 

"The State Election Commission could not have delegated the same to any other subordinate authority. This again is a clear act of contempt," the court observed.