KOLKATA: The
Calcutta High Court on Friday sent a “wake-up call” to the
State Election Commission, directing the poll panel to perform its duties with “absolute neutrality, fairness and transparency” and noting that its performance till now had been far from satisfactory.
The observations of the division bench, comprising Justice
Biswanath Somadder and Justice Arindam Mukherjee, may add to the pressure on the SEC as it goes about trying to rustle up adequate security for the panchayat poll. Its “neutrality”, questioned on Friday, will be put to the test again next Tuesday when another division bench led by Chief Justice
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya scrutinises its security plan for the single-day panchayat vote, which has been scheduled for May 14.
But the division bench of Justice Somadder and Justice Mukherjee refrained from interfering with the election process. “The SEC has been clothed with practically impenetrable immunity against interference with regard to the election process,” the bench observed.
SEC insiders admitted that the commission had not yet submitted a detailed security plan as sought by the court and Friday was the fourth time in a row that the SEC got a yellow card from the judiciary. “We find that the SEC… has acted in such a manner that eyebrows have been raised and accusing fingers have been pointed at it time and again. Its neutrality has been seriously questioned,” the bench observed.
The observation of the division bench came while it was disposing of Congress lawyer Ritzu Ghosal’s petition and referred to opposition parties’ surprised response to the way the SEC scrapped its initial three-phase poll plan despite there being no substantial increase in the availability of security forces.
Officials say the court’s observations make it imperative for the SEC to arrange for additional forces, in consultation with the state government, on the lines of a Calcutta HC division bench’s security directives for the 2013 rural
polls.
The court disposed of the Congress petition, saying the SEC’s April 21 notification could not be called “arbitrary or illegal” even though it might not have contained all the details. But the bench reminded the SEC that it “should conduct itself in a manner, which palpably demonstrates its paramount objective of maintaining absolute neutrality, fairness and transparency during the election process”.
