MIRA-CLES Court upholds panel’s primacy on panchayat polls

Calcutta, May 10: The Mamata Banerjee government was tonight nursing the burns it suffered in a legal agnipariksha over the panchayat polls — a plight that found resonance in a subsequent suggestion by the chief minister that her challenges were more numerous than that of Sita. Calcutta High Court this afternoon upheld all key demands of the state election commission and ordered the state government to “satisfy” the panel with adequate security arrangements, including central forces, for conducting the panchayat polls in three phases. The state government had refused to call in central forces and had wanted the polls to be confined to one phase or two phases at the most. The cloud over the fate of the rural polls has not yet lifted. The state government has vowed to challenge the verdict before a division bench and dropped hints of taking the battle up to the Supreme Court, although the chief minister told a rally that the polls would be held “on time”. But the confusion could not mask the depth of loss of face for the government, which had brushed aside legal opinion and provoked the poll panel headed by Mira Pande to seek recourse in the high court. On almost every count, the high court elaborated on the primacy of the commission in poll-related matters and asked the state government to abide by the poll panel’s assessment and decisions. “About the holding of elections, decisions taken by the commissions are final,” Justice Biswanath Somadder said. Wrapping up the 125-page judgment, he underscored: “To be, or not to be, is not the question here. The panchayat polls in the state should be held in the state within the stipulated period.” A few hours later and around 100km away in Burdwan, the Ramayana, not Hamlet, was on the mind of the chief minister while addressing a rally. “Sita gave agnipariksha only once. I had to pass through agnipariksha for 34 years. I don’t have to prove anything more.” She did not list the fiery tests — the Saradha crisis is certain to figure among them as the thrust of her speech was on attacking the CPM’s alleged links with “chit funds”. ( ) The tests her government has been facing in courtrooms are no less severe. Today’s jolt in court adds to the Trinamul government’s tally of one law (Singur land act) and several decisions struck down by the judiciary during its two-year tenure. Today, the judge sought to ensure that the judicial proceedings on the panchayat polls are insulated from competitive politics. “The commission shall issue necessary directions upon all concerned, including recognised political parties and candidates in the fray, to refrain from referring to the observations made in this judgment as part of their election campaign,” Justice Somadder said in the operative part of the verdict. The order that the government will find most difficult to digest is the one on central forces. The state government had transformed the question into a matter of pride. But the court said the administration should “satisfy” the commission within a day with adequate arrangements for forces, including those from the Centre. Justice Somadder said the shortfall was required to be “fully compensated” by the government by bringing in Central Armed Police Forces as well as security personnel from other states “to the satisfaction of the commission” from the stage of nomination itself. The judge said that ruling political parties “generally use muscle power to remain in power” and accepted most of the arguments put forward by barrister Samaraditya Pal, appearing for the commission. “The exact details are to be made known to the commission, latest by tomorrow,” the court said. State panchayat minister Subrata Mukherjee said the order was “unrealistic” and the government would appeal before a division bench on Monday. Even on the sole issue where the commission’s plea was not accepted in total — that a section in a state law went against the Constitution — the court made it clear the panel can neither be given the cold shoulder nor steamrollered. Section 42 of the West Bengal Panchayat Election Act, 2003, states the state government shall fix the election date or dates in consultation with the state election commission. According to Justice Somadder, the words “shall” means “must” and “consultation” means “reaching an agreement” since it was drafted in light of Article 243K of the Constitution, which empowers the commission with superintendence, control and direction in the conduct of elections. The state government, however, has said “consultation” does not mean “consensus” and has said that the very fact that officials of the panchayat department had met commission officials constitutes consultation.