Case title:
Beshaka Mondal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors
Date of Order:
26th June 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha
SUBJECT
- Petitioners claim the West Bengal State Election Commission omitted their names from 2023 panchayat voting list, preventing challenge.
- It was held that the State, and not the Commission, is the party that vigorously opposes the petitioners' request and the same couldn’t be ignored by the Court.
- The State's rejection to the petition shows that the State administration prefers to win an uncontested election over one that is contestable.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- In accordance with Section 51(1) of the WB Panchayat Raj Act, the Returning Officer shall prepare a list of contesting candidates whose nominations have been finally accepted and shall then allot a symbol to the said contesting candidates in accordance with their choice and preference after the period for withdrawal of candidature has expired.
- The Returning Officer is required by Section 52 of the Act to publish a list of contending candidates very away following symbol allotment. The names of the petitioners do not appear on the purported list, which has since been published.
OVERVIEW
- The petitioners lodged a writ case, claiming that the West Bengal State Election Commission improperly omitted their names off the list of chosen candidates for the 2023 panchayat voting in the Bhangore-II block, South 24 Parganas. As a result, they have been unable to challenge the results, but private respondents who submitted candidatures were pronounced the winners without a challenge.
- The petitioners claim that violence broke out in Bhangore after the Commission’s election notification, with the ruling political party assaulting government officers and preventing nomination papers distribution. The ruling party, with police and state administration support, prevented opposition members from filing nominations.
- The petitioners filed their nominations on June 15, 2023, despite a long queue at centers. The Returning Officer verified the documents, and the names of the petitioners were included in the list of validly nominated candidates on June 16, 2023. The petitioners argue that the Officer did not endorse their decision on the nomination papers, but informed them that their papers had been accepted.
- The names of the petitioners were deleted without explanation on June 20, 2023, the deadline for withdrawing one’s candidature. The petitioners affirm that they did not renounce their candidature.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the candidature of the petitioners was unlawfully removed during the elections or not?
- Whether the court has the right to interfere in State Election procedures?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS
- The petitioners argue that their nominations were scrutinized and in order, and their names should have been included in the final list of contesting candidates. They claim that the names of opposing parties are deliberately deleted to give advantage to the ruling political party’s candidates. The petitioners’ candidature was rejected, and their names were dropped from the list due to fear of contesting against them.
- They seek a direction from the Commission to publish an updated list of contesting candidates and allow them to contest the election.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
- Senior counsel opposes the petitioners’ prayer, arguing that Article 243-O of the Constitution of India prohibits court interference in electoral matters. The petitioners’ writ petition seeking relief may be grounds for filing an election petition, as it is impermissible in law. The petitioners’ prayer may be considered holding up the election, which should not be allowed under any circumstances.
- The writ petition contains disputed facts, including allegations of violence and obstruction. The petitioners’ nominations were cancelled due to objections from opposing candidates, and the Commission’s order to allow them to contest the election would infringe on the rights of the declared uncontested candidates.
- The State focuses on maintainability of the writ petition, citing Supreme Court judgments in Namakkal Constituency & and Lakshmi Charan Sen & Ors. The petitioners’ only remedy is to file an election petition, as the bar imposed by law prevents any petition from being entertained during the election process. Prayers are made for dismissal of the writ petition.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The petitioners’ nomination filing delay was deliberately caused by ruling political party members and supporters, with State administration assistance.
- The Commission failed to create a peaceful atmosphere for nomination papers. Respondents should not take advantage of the situation, as no deliberate error, delay, or laches were committed by the petitioners.
- In several petitions, intending candidates were accused of being prevented or obstructed from submitting their nominations. The court ruled that if there is reasonable apprehension of obstruction, the aggrieved party must take recourse to Section 46(2) of the Act. The court observed that force and violence were used to prevent and obstruct nominations.
- Section 49(8) of the Act mandates Panchayat Returning Officer to prepare valid nominated candidates after scrutinizing nomination papers, published on the Commission’s portal. Section 51(1) lists contesting candidates who accepted nominations and have not withdrawn.
- Despite no withdrawals or material changes, petitioners contend that their names were improperly omitted from the list of legitimately nominated candidates. The state’s attorney asserts that nominations were withdrawn because they were filed after the deadline. This unique circumstance violates constitutional standards and threatens free and fair elections.
- Unfairly rejecting a nomination is, indeed, a reason to file an election petition.
- The inclusion of petitioners’ names in the list of validly nominated candidates indicates their nomination papers were accepted by the Returning Officer. Unethical practices should not be allowed to restrict competition. The Returning Officer must consider the genuine reason for a candidate’s failure to submit the nomination within the prescribed time limit.
- Lakshmi Charan Sen (supra) concerns the election process to the legislature under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Court ruled that the election cannot be arrested for improper revision of electoral roll. The election is conducted under the Act's statutory provisions and is conducted in connection with panchayat, not the legislature.
- The Court must consider the State’s opposition to the petitioners’ prayer, as it raises questions about the Commission’s actions and the Returning Officer’s supervision. This indicates the administration’s preference for uncontested elections, with seats filled only on contest rather than uncontested.
- By June 28, 2023, the Commission must investigate any claims and handle any names of candidates who might have been left off the list. To ensure that legitimately nominated candidates can run for office and interact with voters. Independent judgements must be made without interfering with the credentials of undisputed candidates
- The writ petition was hence disposed of.
