The Supreme Court on Friday reprimanded the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and upheld the Calcutta High Court order that had invalidated the NHRC decision to appoint ‘observers’ for the recently concluded panchayat elections in West Bengal.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that allowing such intervention would equate to encroaching upon the responsibilities of the State Election Commission.
The bench stated, “The impugned NHRC notification was contrary to Article 243K. Taking suo motu cognisance in this manner was impermissible. Autonomy and independence are granted to Central and State election commissions to fulfill their duties without external interference. NHRC’s attempt to assume supervisory powers was not appropriate. We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition (SLP).”
In the course of the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna also highlighted the trend of human rights commissions selectively involving themselves in such matters. She questioned the need to oversee elections when an autonomous body was already in place and expressed concern over the NHRC’s potential overreach. “You want to take parallel action? Human Rights Commissions can intervene in many scenarios, but they are choosing specific instances and acting as if they hold superior authority… Apologies, but we are dismissing this,” she remarked.
The Top Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Calcutta High Court’s decision, which had ruled that the NHRC’s action infringed upon the jurisdiction of the West Bengal State Election Commission (SEC). The High Court had emphasized that the NHRC’s appointment of an observer would intrude upon the electoral process and interfere with the SEC’s powers, which was not permissible.
While acknowledging that the NHRC possesses such powers, the High Court had stressed the necessity for conducting an inquiry and verifying media reports before taking action, which was not done in this instance.
The NHRC, through advocate Vanshaja Shukla, had appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the High Court failed to recognize that free and fair elections are a fundamental human right. The NHRC contended that its intervention aimed to preempt human rights violations.
