SUVENDU ADHIKARI Vs. RAJIVA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The alleged contemnor in CPAN No. 831 of 2023 is Mr. Rajiva Sinha, the State Election Commissioner of West Bengal. In CPAN No. 948 of 2023, the alleged contemnors are Shri Rajiva Sinha, the State Election Commissioner, Shir Hari Krishna Dwidi, Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Shri B.P. Gopalika, Principal Secretary, Department of Home and Hill Affairs, Government of West Bengal and Shri Manoj Malaviya, Director General and Inspector General of Police, West Bengal.

(2.) CPAN No. 831 of 2023 has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the judgment and order dtd. 15/6/2023 in WPA (P) No. 301 of 2023. CPAN No. 948 of 2023 has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the judgments and orders dtd. 21/6/2023, 23/6/2023, 28/6/2023, 3/7/2023 and 6/7/2023 passed in CPAN No. 831 of 2023 as well as the judgment and order dtd. 15/6/2023 in WPA (P) No. 301 of 2023. The contempt petition was heard on various dates and orders were passed from time to time. The first order was passed on 21/6/2023, the following observations were made:-

(3.) After elaborately hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the order and direction has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. We fail to understand as to why the State Election Commission is still not taking any independent decision in the matter and the learned senior counsel for the State Election Commission on instruction stated that the Election Commission will abide by the directions issued by this Court. In the first order passed by this Court, the Court reposed confidence on the State Election Commission and directed to make an assessment of the sensitive Districts but we found that this direction has not yet been taken and the matter was being dragged which necessitated the Court to issue direction for deployment of the Central Forces for the entire State which order has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On instructions, the learned senior advocate for the State Election Commission submitted that 'one Company of the Central Force has been requisitioned for each of the 22 Districts'. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that one Company consists of 80 active persons and the total number of such personnel of the Central Force would be 1700, which in our view is thoroughly inadequate. We are justified in taking such stand in the light of the requisition which was made for deployment of Central Forces during the Panchayat Elections conducted in the State of West Bengal in 2013. In this regard, we refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Election Commission Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2013) SCC on line 1283. It is interesting to note that the State Election Commission was the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court resisting the decision of the State of West Bengal in the matter of deployment of Central Forces for the year 2013 Panchayat Election. If that was the manner in which the State Election Commission had acted in the year 2013, we are at a loss to understand as to what has happened to the independency and supremacy of the State Election Commission during the ensuing election. In the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been recorded that the Panchayat Election 2013 was to be conducted in five phases from 11th July to 25/7/2013 and interestingly deployment of State Police was 1,05,000 and Central Forces was 82,000 and, more particularly, at the relevant point of time there were only 17 Districts in the State of West Bengal as against 22 Districts at present. Therefore, if the State Election Commission is not pro-active and not inclined to implement the order passed by this Court in its letter and spirit, we are of the prima facie opinion that the State Election Commission is attempting to make the orders passed by this Court unworkable to which they are not entitled to, more particularly, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the order. This will also lead us to a prima facie conclusion that there has been deliberate violation of the order and direction which was directed to be complied with in its letter and spirit. In the light of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the State Election Commission that the Commission will abide by the directions issued by this Court, we are inclined to issue the following directions which are ancillary and supplementary to the orders passed in the earlier two writ petitions.