Calcutta High Court Restrains State From Notifying KMC Elections Till Nov 6, Reserves Orders In Challenge To Ward Delimitation

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday restrained the West Bengal Government from issuing any notification for elections to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) till November 6, while reserving its order on a petition challenging the delimitation of wards and the increase in their number from 144 to 209 ahead of the upcoming civic polls.

A vacation bench of the High Court passed the interim order after expressing prima facie satisfaction that the powers of an elected Corporation could not be vested in an Administrator by the State Government. The Court observed that the KMC Act required the State to act on the recommendation of the Corporation, raising questions about whether an Administrator appointed by the State could exercise such powers.

Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the delimitation notification was issued in September, when no elected KMC council was in existence. He submitted that the Corporation had been dissolved on June 8 and its Chairperson, Smita Pandey, was subsequently appointed as Administrator with only administrative functions.

Bhattacharya argued that an Administrator could not exercise the legislative powers of an elected Corporation, particularly when the Administrator herself was an employee of the Corporation. He questioned whether the State could vest her with the same powers as the elected body and contended that the entire decision-making process was vitiated.

The Court observed that the language of the KMC Act appeared to create an anomaly, as the State was required to act on the recommendation of the Corporation. If the Administrator, appointed by the State, could exercise the Corporation's powers, it would effectively mean that "the State Government is giving an instruction to itself".

The petitioners further argued that there had been no application of mind before undertaking the delimitation exercise, including an assessment of its financial implications. Bhattacharya also alleged that the exercise amounted to gerrymandering, referring to Supreme Court rulings on the unconstitutionality of such practices.

Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra, appearing for the State, opposed the petition and submitted that the State Government was not required to obtain the approval of the KMC council to undertake the delimitation exercise. He argued that the Administrator had been vested with all the powers of the Corporation and that the challenge was barred by Article 243ZG of the Constitution, which provides that delimitation-related matters concerning municipal elections can be questioned only through an election petition after the elections.

During the hearing, the Court clarified that it was only considering whether any consequential action based on the impugned delimitation notification should be stayed. It also asked whether the election process had commenced, to which the Advocate General replied in the negative.

The Court then indicated that it was inclined to restrain the State from taking further steps till November 6. When the State requested the Court not to pass an order, the bench asked whether it would instead provide an assurance that no election notification would be issued in the meantime.

The Election Commission's counsel submitted that it had no information about when the elections would be notified, stating that the decision rested with the State Government.

The Court ultimately recorded an interim restraint on issuing any notification calling elections to the KMC on the basis of the impugned delimitation notification till November 6. The matter has been reserved for orders and will be taken up again on that date