Parties are coming repeatedly, why don't you deploy forces on your own accord: Calcutta High Court to SEC

The Calcutta High Court asked the State Election Commission as to why it is not deploying paramilitary forces on it own accord when repeated petitions are being filed for the same.

The Court was hearing petitions regarding deploying central paramilitary forces in the upcoming municipal polls in 108 municipalities.

On Monday, the Division bench of Chief Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj heard extensive submissions made on Bharatiya Janata Party, represented by Senior Advocate Paramjit Patwalia. Patwalia made his submission on five main grounds.

• Patwalia submitted that on 10th February, the Court had ordered the State Election Commission to hold a meeting with State functionaries and decide whether deployment of paramilitary forces was required during municipal polls which took place on 12th February, 2022. He submitted that according to the minutes of the said meeting, the parties did not discuss the deployment of forces. The SEC did not measure the ground situation and decided not to deploy only on assurance of State.

Patwalia referred to the Basabi Roychowdhury v. State of West Bengal, where the Court had opined that the prayer for deployment of paramilitary forces during Kolata Municipal Election premature and hence decided not to direct on the same. Referring to alleged instances of violence and voter fraud, Patwalia said now the situation is not premature. Patwalia also referred to Supreme Court decision in Trupura Election wherein paramilitary forces were deployed. To this the Court observed that the direction of the Supreme Court is similar to what the Calcutta High Court had directed and that the ground situation was assessed by the authorities following APEX court had ordered 'additional deployment of forces'. The Court further asked whether there are any instances where the Court itself assessed the ground situation.

"One of the major players (BJP) is feeling uncomfortable in the election. We are coming to court over and over again. Nowhere else we are bothering the courts like this," Patwalia said.

To the above submission, Adv. Jayanta Mitra for the State Election Commission submitted that the SEC took the decision after assessing the ground situation which did not warrant deployment of paramilitary forces.

Advocate General S.N. Mukherjee representing the State submitted that the deployment of forces comes under the purview of SEC under Article 243 za of the Constitution. He further submitted that no instances have been provided in the petition which warrants deployment of military during upcoming election.

• Patwalia referred to certain schemes of the State Government namely, Duare Sarkar, Paraye Smadhan and Lakshmi'r Bhandar and stated that such scheme started after the declaration of election which is breach of the Model Code of Conduct. He further referred to a government scheme which allows distribution of title deeds of plots of lands to refugees of East Pakistan, who had been occupying such plots.

To this both Mitra and Mukherjee submitted that the schemes started before the announcement of election. Further, Adv. Saktinath Mukherjee representing the Urban Development Department submitted the the scheme of title distribution is a continuing scheme of more than 50 years, which does not breach the Model Code of Conduct.

• Patwalia submitted that a large number of BJP candidates have not been allowed to file nominations in the election of 12th February. Taking the example of one Rakesh Majumdar who was denied nomination for being 'late' to the offices. To this the Court asked Patwalia to submit the list of candidates who were denied nomination.

Mitra replied that those who came on time has have been accepted and that any grievance regarding nomination has to be decided by an election petition.

• Patwalia further submitted that there have been large scale violence which the State did not take note of. He relied on newspaper reports to substantiate his arguments. Mukherjee replied that each incident complained of has been individually dealt with.
• Patwalia referred to sealing of EVM which was done away with and brought back again.
• Patwalia also called for independent observer from the Center to oversee the election.

The Court has reserved its order in the matter.

Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.