On 15th June, the Calcutta High Court, led by Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam, ordered that Central Paramilitary forces should be deployed in all districts in West Bengal during the upcoming Panchayat Polls on July 8. The court directed that the State Election Commission should request the central govt for central forces. It is notable that the State government had opposed deploying central forces, and had offered to deploy police from opposition-ruled states to ensure fair elections.
Panchayat election in West Bengal | Chief Justice Division Bench of Calcutta High Court orders for Central Paramilitary forces in all the districts of the state for the Panchayat elections, scheduled for July 8. Within 48 hours, the State Election Commission should request the… pic.twitter.com/hdGJveT62E
— ANI (@ANI) June 15, 2023
A division bench of Chief Justice Sivagnaman and Justice Uday Kumar said that not just sensitive areas, but central forces will have to be deployed in the entire state during the elections. The High Court also came down heavily on the State Election Commission, which could not identify sensitive areas for the deployment of central forces during the election as per an earlier court order. Earlier on Tuesday, the court had ordered to deploy central forces in seven districts identified as sensitive by the administration.
The State Election Commission had approached the High Court requesting to reconsider the order to deploy central forces in sensitive areas, but instead, the court ordered to deploy the forces in all the districts. The court was not happy with the plea by the SEC. The chief justice said, ‘We are not going to advise that you don’t go to the higher court against the order, you have the right to approach the higher court. But if you create a situation of not implementing our order, we will not sit silent. The court alleged that the SEC is creating a situation so that the court order can’t be implemented.
During the proceedings, BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari brought attention to the mounting pressure faced by opposition candidates to withdraw nominations, stating, “Insurmountable pressure is being put on candidates to withdraw their nominations. The State Election Commission has not taken any decision to declare sensitive seats, and neither has it requisitioned central forces, as ordered by the High Court.”
Chief Justice Sivagnanam expressed dissatisfaction with the State Election Commission’s delay, emphasizing the need for swift action. He warned, “We do not appreciate this tactic to defeat and frustrate our orders. What if there is a contempt plea against you? What if we take up suo motu contempt?”
In response, the SEC counsel defended the delay, citing the time required to identify sensitive seats. However, Chief Justice Sivagnanam reiterated his concerns about the loss of time and instructed the commission not to erode confidence in its ability to conduct free and fair elections.
The West Bengal government sought to modify the High Court’s judgment, questioning the SEC’s delay in declaring sensitive seats. They argued, “Order says that there are some sensitive seats. But the SEC is yet to declare such seats. A decision in this regard is yet to be taken.”
Meanwhile, Suvendu Adhikari’s counsel emphasized the need for urgent action, referring to the National Human Rights Commission’s report on the 2021 post-poll violence. He stated, “The report says that there was a ‘Politico-Bureaucratic Nexus.’ This is a deadly combination that has sinister implications for any State and will ultimately corrode the entire edifice.”
The State representative countered, questioning the lack of specific facts and evidence in the petition. The state counsel cautioned against relying on media reports and TV shows, urging the court to base its decisions on proper facts and pleadings.
Throughout the proceedings, the West Bengal government’s approach came under scrutiny. While welcoming police officers from other states ruled by opposition parties, they questioned the necessity of central forces and raised concerns about public confidence.
“We have requisitioned police officers from Punjab, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, etc. If the SEC says they need 1 lakh or more personnel, we will provide it to them. We have made our own arrangements for deploying the forces. Why not central forces? Will CISF instil confidence in the public?” the State government argued.
State: We have requisitioned police officers from Punjab, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, Odisha etc.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) June 15, 2023
If the SEC says they need 1 lakh or more personnel, we will provide it to them. We have made our own arrangements for deploying the forces.
Why not central forces? Will CISF instill…
Moreover, the government emphasized the importance of implementing orders related to religious events and conducting an impartial investigation without favouritism towards any political party or individual. They expressed curiosity to witness the fairness of such an investigation.
The government also questioned whether police personnel from other states and the existing state police force could sufficiently instil public confidence, suggesting that relying solely on the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) might not be necessary, considering the court’s reference to the deployment of police forces rather than central forces.
