Read Time: 11 minutes

The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj has reserved its order in a plea seeking deployment of central paramilitary forces in the upcoming municipal elections. 

Elections are to be held for Siliguri, Bidhannagar, Asansol and Chandernagore on February 12, 2022, the results for which will be announced on February 14. These elections were postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

On Wednesday, Advocate for the petitioner Pinky Anand prayed for the following: 

• Deployment of central paramilitary forces to ensure free and fair elections. Bidhannagar particularly has a violent history, Anand submitted. Anand referred to various incidents which took place in the past month after the civic polls like molestation, beatings, threatening and taking down of banners. 
• Anand also prayed for counting of votes to be done simultaneously with votes of 108 municipal body election which will take place on February 27.
• Anand also challenged the State Election Commission notification which states that polling agents can only be from the area of the polling station. Anand contended that such mandate is contrary to Election Commission of India's notification dated 15/4/2021 which states that polling agents are allowed from same assemble constituencies.

At this juncture, CJ Shrivastava enquired who can take a decision on deployment of paramilitary forces, state or SEC. To this Anand submitted that SEC is to take the decision. However, if SEC chooses not to, then the Court can intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution and direct the same. 

Adv. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, for the petitioner, also submitted that there is no qualification required to be a polling agent. He submitted that the requirement by SEC is contrary to mandate under The West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules and also the Handbook of Polling Agents. 

Adv. Srijib Chakraborty representing residents of Bidhannagar submitted that there have been instances where polling agents have been beaten up inside the polling booth and election could not be conducted peacefully.

Per contra, Senior Counsel for the SEC, Jayanta Mitra submitted that according to EC the situation has changed from the instances put forth by Anand.

He submitted that state police is moving from area to area, ensuring peace. One can not put stray incidents, he submitted.

Mitra further submitted that SEC has sat with highest echelons of police and decided that state police is sufficient to conduct elections. He further submitted that in cases such as these the Court’s supervision will have to be limited because the Court has not been given the whole ground reality. Mitra submitted that more than enough police force is there to conduct free and fair election. 

Mitra submitted that under Article 243ZA of the Constitution the SEC has been given the power to assess such situations and take a call. Mitra relied on Basabi Raichoudhury v. State of West Bengal, and Laxmi Bai v. The Collector to bring home his point. 

At this point, the Court quizzed whether the same is only on pair because similar assurance was given during Kolkata Municipal Corporation elections. Court referred to the chart provided by petitioners enlisting the violence that has taken place. To this Mitra submitted that these are stray incidents and said, 

"Your lordship has to decide the truth and correctness of the same. Wherever election is there, allegation and counter allegation is there. We are not a mature democracy. We can not be compared with UK and USA. See what is happening in Karnataka, UP etc."

On the issue of polling agents, Mitra submitted that this is an exclusive decision of SEC and unless it is glaringly unlawful, it can not be interfered with. On the issue of simultaneous counting of votes he submitted that, if votes are kept from counting then the EVM stay detained. On being quizzed that declaration of result in one municipal body can influence voters in other areas, Mitra referred to voting out of Indira Gandhi and submitted, "I never underestimate voters."

Advocate General S.N. Mukherjee representing the state submitted that more than enough police force is there and more can be provided if required to conduct free and fair election. He further submitted that in Bidhannagar all those who wanted personal security has been given so. He further submitted that if central forces are deployed it is not a guarantee that peace will survive, referring to an incident during assembly election where 4 persons were murdered.

On issue of polling agent he submitted that polling agents are tasked with identifying voters in the locality. He referred to Rule 9.1 of the 'Handbook For Polling Agents' which specifies, "A local person might be knowing many of the electors personally and might be of assistance in preventing impersonation at election. Therefore, the polling agents shall be ordinarily resident and electors of the concerned polling areas or of the neighbouring polling station." 

He further submitted that every municipality is a different body, hence if results are declared earlier, that can not be interfered with. 

ASG Y.J. Dastoor representing the Union stated that if central forces are required, that will be provided within 24 hours. 

Court has reserved its order. 

Cause Title: Pratap Banerjee vs State Of West Bengal And Ors