Calcutta High Court Reserves Judgment In Plea Filed By BJP Leader To Hold Municipal Polls In State In One Phase

The Calcutta High Court on Friday reserved judgment in the plea moved by BJP Sate vice-president Pratap Banerjee seeking direction to the West Bengal government and the State Election Commission (SEC) to hold municipal polls in the State in one phase.A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bhardwaj had earlier sought response from the State government stipulating the time period within which the State government would hold elections to the remaining municipal bodies apart from the already notified Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, the Bench was informed by the State Election Commission that they had already initiated dialogue with the State government in this regard and that elections for the remaining municipalities would be held in 6-8 phases in the month of May 2022. The Bench on Friday heard extensive arguments from the concerned parties and also took on record the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the State government and the State Election Commission as well as the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Submissions by Pinky Anand on behalf of the petitionerSenior advocate Pinky Anand appearing for the petitioner submitted before the Bench that in the affidavits filed by the State Election Commission and the State government, there have been blatant violations of the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated December 1, 2021. The senior counsel submitted that although the Bench had directed the State Election Commission to file a detailed time schedule regarding the holding of the remaining municipal body elections, such a direction had been not been complied with.She further averred that the State Election Commission had also not responded to the direction of the High Court wherein the Commission had been asked to explore the feasibility of simultaneous counting of ballot papers of all the Municipal Councils so that election result of one Municipality may not affect the election of other. It was also contended that the State Election Commission was trying to prioritize elections to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation over others since favorable results can be expected by the State government. The senior counsel also objected to the plea taken by the State Election Commission that elections to other municipal bodies other than the Kolkata Municipal Corporation were being delayed due to the impending threat of the Omicron strain of the Coronavirus. She remarked, "The Commission is trying to bring the plea of Omicron as if Kolkata is protected from the effect of Omicron"The Bench was further apprised that the Election Commission had held simultaneous elections for 91 municipal bodies back in 2015. She further submitted before the Bench that as per the directions of the Supreme Court EVMS containing Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) are mandatory which is not being followed for the elections to the upcoming Kolkata Municipal Corporation as evident from the affidavit submitted. It was further contended that unless such VVPAT containing EVM machines are not made available, it would result in the subversion of free and fair elections. In this regard, reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission Of India wherein the Supreme Court had directed the ECI to introduce "paper trail" by use of VVPAT in all the 21 polling stations of 51-Noksen (ST) Assembly Constituency of Nagaland. Furthermore, the senior counsel also referred to Supreme Court judgment in N Chandrababu Naidu v. Union Of India wherein the ECI had also been directed to use VVPAT in EVMs for accurate election results. Furthermore, it was contended that the State Election Commission had violated Section 38 of the West Bengal Municipal Elections Act, 1994 wherein the Municipal Election Officer is mandated to give public notice of an intended election for the purpose of inviting nominations for the said elections. It was argued that such a provision was not compiled with when it comes to notifying the elections of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. To this the Bench stated, "Can this be gone into at this stage?" In response, the senior counsel stated that she was just attempting to show that elections are being conducted in a partisan manner. She further stated that in case there has been a violation of mandatory provisions, the Court can interfere at any stage and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. The State Of Maharashtra in this regard. "Either you hold elections or you don't, you cannot choose to hold elections in only one local body", senior advocate Anand further averred. She stated further that the actions of the State Election Commission are malafide and attempt to ensure that results favour only one political party. Submissions by Jayanta Mitra on behalf of State Election CommissionSenior Advocate Jayanta Mitra appearing for the State Election Commission contended before the Bench that the...

Calcutta High Court Reserves Judgment In Plea Filed By BJP Leader To Hold Municipal Polls In State In One Phase

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags