The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to intervene with an order of the Calcutta High Court directing deployment of central forces for the upcoming panchayat polls in West Bengal.
A vacation bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Manoj Misra stated that the High Court’s order aimed to ensure fair and impartial elections in the state.
“Order of High Court does not call for any interference. We are not interfering with any direction of the High Court. Appeals stand dismissed,” the bench stated.
The bench also took note of the fact that conducting elections should not be seen as a justification for violence. The Court further acknowledged that the High Court had previously witnessed instances of violence associated with elections.
“Holding elections cannot be a license for violence and HC has seen earlier instances of violence, Elections cannot be accompanied by violence. If persons are not able to file their nominations and if they are finished off while they are going to file it then where is the free and fair election,” the bench remarked.
The top court was hearing appeals filed by the by the West Bengal government and the State Election Commission (SEC) challenging two orders issued by the Calcutta High Court. The primary concern was regarding the High Court’s directive to immediately requisition and deploy central forces in “sensitive” constituencies for the upcoming panchayat polls.
On June 15, the High Court reprimanded the West Bengal SEC for its delay in addressing this matter. The challenged orders were issued by the High Court in response to public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed by Suvendu Adhikari, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, a Congress leader. Both politicians approached the High Court to contest the SEC’s notification of the election schedule for the three-tier Panchayat elections (Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti, and Zilla Parishad). They requested the deployment of central forces and an extension of the nomination filing deadline. While the High Court denied the latter request, it granted the former. During the proceedings, the State government informed the Court that sensitive areas had not been demarcated yet, and the deployment ordered by the High Court covered every district, regardless of sensitivity.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing the SEC, clarified that the election commission was actively working on identifying sensitive polling booths and that the observations suggesting otherwise were incorrect.
“189 poll booths have been recognised as sensitive… I am aggrieved by 2 directions of the High Court … it says Election Commission should decide on requisition of forces and deployment has to be in sync with sensitive and non sensitive ones,” Advocate Arora stated.
Adding to her arguments, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora highlighted that the High Court had instructed the SEC to requisition central forces from the State government, which was beyond the authority of the SEC since it falls under the purview of the State government. On the other side, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing the respondents, countered the notion that central forces were seen as an invading army, stating that they merely served as a source for acquiring forces and not for determining their deployment. He emphasized that no High Court would direct the head of the force to decide on deployment.
Advocate Salve pointed out the recurring problem in the state and stated that it had manifested on multiple occasions. Additionally, he noted that on June 14, the State government had already stated that they had no assessment plan in place, highlighting the need for an earlier initiation of the process.
