Cop transfers biased, want EC to review decision: Bengal CM
TNN | Apr 7, 2019, 09:16 IST
West Bengal CM Mamata BanerjeeKOLKATA: Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee on Saturday shot off a two-page letter to the Election Commission, calling its decision to transfer four senior state cops ahead of the LS poll “arbitrary, motivated and biased”.
The EC, in a late-evening decision on Friday, replaced the Kolkata and Bidhannagar police commissioners and the Diamond Harbour and Birbhum superintendents of police; the order also mentioned that the four IPS officers could not be allotted any poll-related duty.
Banerjee’s letter on Saturday said the EC action was “prima facie undemocratic and suffers from principles of natural justice”. She also urged the EC to review its decision and enquire “under whose guidance the decision” was taken. The issue came up in her political speeches as well. In Alipurduar’s Barobisha, she said: “They have changed good police officials but that will not affect us. If you can, replace me first.”
The state government, however, was prompt to issue “immediate” orders replacing the four officials and handing over charge to their replacements. Outgoing Kolkata Police commissioner Anuj Sharma was posted as additional director-general (operations); outgoing Bidhannagar Police commissioner Gyanwant Singh was made director, Directorate of Economic Offences; the two SPs replaced by the EC order — Syam Singh and S Selvamurugan — were posted as commanding officers of State Armed Police (SAP) battalions. Two of the transferred cops indicated to TOI that they would leave it to the state government to decide on the next course of action. “There is nothing to say on it. It is the EC’s perception. We are in government jobs and it is not our work to question,” one of them said. Their replacements, too, took charge.
Rajesh Kumar, who took over as the city’s 41st police commissioner (the third this year after Rajeev Kumar and Sharma), said: “This is an onerous responsibility. I seek the help and support of everyone to ensure a peaceful election.”
The political slugfest, however, was bitter. The Bengal CM argued that the EC order “followed” BJP leaders’ press statements “foretelling” transfer of senior state cops and PM Narendra Modi’s statement about the law-and-order situation in Bengal being bad.
“This flow of events gives rise to strong doubts about whether the EC is functioning as per its constitutional mandate of conducting free and fair elections or working in a manner to appease the ruling BJP,” Banerjee said. The CM, also the state home (police) minister, questioned the capabilities of the new police commissioners. “The two officers named by the EC as police commissioners were given the duty of police observers in other states. These officers do not have adequate knowledge of the area (where they will take charge),” she added, saying this could significantly jeopardise the task of managing these areas. “Should there be any deterioration in the law-and-order situation, will the EC take responsibility?”
The new KP commissioner, when asked to react to the CM’s statements, just said a curt “no comments”.
The EC did not respond to the Bengal CM’s letter immediately. Bengal chief electoral officer Aariz Aftab did not comment on the issue.
Senior Bengal government officials indicated that they had anticipated the EC move after excerpts of a WhatsApp voice call between two senior BJP leaders surfaced in February; the two spoke on the need to “act against” four IPS officers. The state government effected some changes the same month, bringing in key trouble-shooters to important positions.
The state’s top legal officers on Saturday told their colleagues that there was “no instruction from the state government” for any immediate legal move. A former state advocate-general, who had advised the Mamata Banerjee government on this issue earlier, said: “In September 2000, the apex court accepted a settlement proposal by the EC, the centre and six state governments, which elaborated the EC’s powers regarding state officers during the poll process. This includes substituting officers and returning them to their home cadre.” Senior lawyer Sekhar Basu argued that a transfer order need not be deemed a punitive action but could be considered an administrative order.
The EC, in a late-evening decision on Friday, replaced the Kolkata and Bidhannagar police commissioners and the Diamond Harbour and Birbhum superintendents of police; the order also mentioned that the four IPS officers could not be allotted any poll-related duty.
Banerjee’s letter on Saturday said the EC action was “prima facie undemocratic and suffers from principles of natural justice”. She also urged the EC to review its decision and enquire “under whose guidance the decision” was taken. The issue came up in her political speeches as well. In Alipurduar’s Barobisha, she said: “They have changed good police officials but that will not affect us. If you can, replace me first.”
The state government, however, was prompt to issue “immediate” orders replacing the four officials and handing over charge to their replacements. Outgoing Kolkata Police commissioner Anuj Sharma was posted as additional director-general (operations); outgoing Bidhannagar Police commissioner Gyanwant Singh was made director, Directorate of Economic Offences; the two SPs replaced by the EC order — Syam Singh and S Selvamurugan — were posted as commanding officers of State Armed Police (SAP) battalions. Two of the transferred cops indicated to TOI that they would leave it to the state government to decide on the next course of action. “There is nothing to say on it. It is the EC’s perception. We are in government jobs and it is not our work to question,” one of them said. Their replacements, too, took charge.
Rajesh Kumar, who took over as the city’s 41st police commissioner (the third this year after Rajeev Kumar and Sharma), said: “This is an onerous responsibility. I seek the help and support of everyone to ensure a peaceful election.”
The political slugfest, however, was bitter. The Bengal CM argued that the EC order “followed” BJP leaders’ press statements “foretelling” transfer of senior state cops and PM Narendra Modi’s statement about the law-and-order situation in Bengal being bad.
“This flow of events gives rise to strong doubts about whether the EC is functioning as per its constitutional mandate of conducting free and fair elections or working in a manner to appease the ruling BJP,” Banerjee said. The CM, also the state home (police) minister, questioned the capabilities of the new police commissioners. “The two officers named by the EC as police commissioners were given the duty of police observers in other states. These officers do not have adequate knowledge of the area (where they will take charge),” she added, saying this could significantly jeopardise the task of managing these areas. “Should there be any deterioration in the law-and-order situation, will the EC take responsibility?”
The new KP commissioner, when asked to react to the CM’s statements, just said a curt “no comments”.
The EC did not respond to the Bengal CM’s letter immediately. Bengal chief electoral officer Aariz Aftab did not comment on the issue.
Senior Bengal government officials indicated that they had anticipated the EC move after excerpts of a WhatsApp voice call between two senior BJP leaders surfaced in February; the two spoke on the need to “act against” four IPS officers. The state government effected some changes the same month, bringing in key trouble-shooters to important positions.
The state’s top legal officers on Saturday told their colleagues that there was “no instruction from the state government” for any immediate legal move. A former state advocate-general, who had advised the Mamata Banerjee government on this issue earlier, said: “In September 2000, the apex court accepted a settlement proposal by the EC, the centre and six state governments, which elaborated the EC’s powers regarding state officers during the poll process. This includes substituting officers and returning them to their home cadre.” Senior lawyer Sekhar Basu argued that a transfer order need not be deemed a punitive action but could be considered an administrative order.
Making sense of 2019
#Electionswithtimes
View Full Coverage
All Comments ()+^ Back to Top
Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.
HIDE