Not Earnest In Discharging Duties Despite Court Orders: Kerala High Court Raps Police Over Postponement Of Cooperative Society Election

The Kerala High Court on Thursday expressed its concern over the inaction of the police to avoid riots at a scheduled election to a Cooperative Society despite specific court orders, which in turn encourages the widespread politicisation of cooperative societies in the State.A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha observed that when this Court directs police protection for an election, the police is obliged to ensure that every member willing to cast vote is not obstructed by anyone. It was found that when the Police were informed by the Returning Officer himself that there would be law and order issues on the date of polling, the Police ought to have taken all necessary steps for the smooth conduct of the election."We are unable to believe that the Police force in the State is incapable of providing aid for the smooth conduct of an election to a co-operative society. If we assume the contrary, we will have to hold that the Police force in the State is incapable of maintaining law and order. Needless to say, the Police Officers concerned were not eager and earnest in discharging their duties despite orders passed by this Court, but at the same time, they were passively ensuring the postponement of the election."The appellants had moved the Court seeking to hold the election to a Co-operative Society by February 2022, alleging that the term of the current Managing Committee had already expired and they were continuing in office on the basis of a temporary arrangement made by the State amid the pandemic. The Court had thereby directed the State Co-operative Election Commission to take necessary steps to hold the election, which was soon notified to be held on 14.05.2022. Subsequently, the appellants moved the Court seeking police protection to ensure that the election is not obstructed by anyone, alleging that arrangements were being made to sabotage the election by causing obstruction to the voters. Accordingly, the Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Circle Inspector of Police to afford sufficient protection for the smooth conduct of the election. The Returning Officer was also asked to video-graph the entire polling process.However, the polling was allegedly obstructed by the supporters of the influential candidates backed by political parties by resorting to violence, and the election had to be postponed. It was alleged that despite the order of police protection, the police remained as mute spectators. Senior Advocate George Poonthottam appeared for the petitioners and contended that the violence at the polling station could have been avoided had the Police not abstained from preventing the violence at the instance of the leaders of the political parties in power who want to obstruct the election process. It was further pointed out that the official respondents have to create a situation where election to the society could be properly conducted.Standing Counsel R. Lakshmi Narayan appeared for the Election Commission and submitted that although the Commission had made all arrangements for the election, it could not be conducted due to the riot that took place at the polling station and that in a situation of this nature, it cannot be blamed for having postponed the election.The videos produced by the Election Commission were displayed in open court, which exhibited visuals of a mob blocking entry into the polling station, attacking and chasing those attempting to enter the polling station and threatening and attacking the police.It was also found that the order scheduling the election in May was intended to create a situation to enable the voters to cast their votes peacefully yet it was disrupted by a group of people by resorting to rioting.Under Article 43B of the Constitution, the State is obliged to ensure that cooperative societies are governed by elected representatives and therefore, bureaucratic control of a society can only be resorted to in exceptional situations where democratic control is impossible. The Court emphasised this to point out that timely election to a cooperative society is not merely a statutory obligation of the authorities concerned, but a constitutional obligation. It was also found that the cases that come up before the Court indicate that majority of the co-operative institutions are victims of politicisation, and elections to co-operative societies have become an arena of rivalries between political parties."The case on hand is an illustrative one of the evil effect of the politicisation of co-operative societies. But for the rivalry between political parties, we do not find any reason why a group of people should go to the horrid extent of indulging in an unlawful activity in the nature of rioting, so as to prevent holding of an election in a co-operative society, that too, one conducted as directed by this Court with police aid. Instances of this nature would certainly erode the confidence reposed on...

Not Earnest In Discharging Duties Despite Court Orders: Kerala High Court Raps Police Over Postponement Of Cooperative Society Election

Hannah M Varghese

Tags