Thread by @LiveLawIndia

#SupremeCourt to hear a plea challenging Calcutta High Court's order directing the West Bengal State Election Commission to requisition central forces for all districts in West Bengal for the 2023 Panchayat Elections #WestBengalPanchayatElections2023

A vacation Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Manoj Misra to hear the matter.

Sr Adv for State of WB: One paragraph becomes relevant. The only issue is with respect to deployment of central forces.

Sr. Adv. for State: Kindly come straight away to the operative portion...As a matter of fact as on date there was no demarcation made of sensitive area.

Justice Nagarathna: What is the situation on ground level?

Sr. Adv. for State: Today is the last day for withdrawing nomination. Polling is on 8th of July.

Justice Nagarathna: So even according to you the police force is inadequate to meet the situation. That is why you have requisitioned forces from half a dozen states.

Justice Nagarathna: The HC said take central force instead of requisitioning forces from half a dozen states. The expenses would be borne by the Central Govt.

Sr. Adv. for State: In the event as circumstances develop to ensure that I do not have a problem, I have made arrangements. This is not an admission that my police force is inadequate.

Justice Nagarathna: Holding election cannot be license for violence. Elections cannot be accompanied by violence. Persons are not able to file nominations, there are group lashes, some of them who have filed nominations are finished.

Justice Nagarathna: What is the homework done by the State Election Commission?

Sr. Adv. Meenakshi Arora (for SEC): One order of the HC is not within the purview of the SEC.

Arora: There is a need to identify sensitive poll booths. This has been done. The observation that SEC has not done anything is not called for.

Arora: Poll is notified on 8th June. On 9th June in the morning itself. the petition is filed without seeing what is happening.

Arora: We (SEC) are conscious of our responsibilities...Please appreciate what is the need of filing this petition on the 9th.

Justice Nagarathna: What steps did you take after...?

Arora: Kindly have a look at pg...

Arora: We write to them for assessment plan, which comes from them; we check. SEC cannot requisition any forces. It can only request the State. The order passed by the HC is contrary.

Arora: HC says that SEC will requisition the deployment of forces. But that is done by the State not SEC. HC says SEC has to provide forces in all areas and districts. The deployment has to be done in booths, but it cannot be for the whole of the districts.

Arora: Between today and 6th July there would be campaigning period; there would be cooling off period and we proceed to poll in 8th July. Requisitioning forces is to be done by State...

Justice Nagarathna: How are you (SEC) aggrieved by the HC order. You have ourself requested for deployment of forces. Where the forces come from is not your concern. How is it maintainable? #WestBengalPanchayatElections2023

Arora: It is not my requisition. I can ask State for the numbers required. How the State arranges those numbers that I cannot say. I cannot requisition the forces.

Arora: Area is not sensitive, booths are concerned sensitive.

Justice Nagarathna: Having regard to past history in the state the petition was entertained by the HC and order was passed. But it is to your (SEC) aid. You (SEC) cannot have been aggrieved.
#WestBengalPanchayatElections2023

Another Counsel for SEC: Strictures have been passed against the SEC.

Justice Nagarathna: After hearing the other side we may pass orders for expunging those observations.

Sr. Adv. for State: Today what we are looking at is the ipse dixit of individuals outside the election process...

Sr. Adv. for State: The SEC is the ultimate arbiter to say if forces are required. I (State) have forces within the State. If required, I come with five other states and requisition and put they on alert.

Sr. Adv. for State: ...Last time CRPF officers open fired and people had died.

Sr. Adv. for State: What methodology that HC talks of is going to be different for central forces. It is not the adequacy of forces commented upon, it is the source of the forces that is being commented upon by the HC.

Sr. Adv. for State:The HC has chosen the sources of the forces. Now HC says not only the booths but the whole of the district...So the result is that whole of the State is going to be under the cover of the central force.

Justice Nagarathna:That is only for conducting election.

Sr. Adv. for State: HC has made the assessment itself and taken the power from the hands of the State.

Sr. Adv. for State: I (State) am in control of the law and order situation. I cannot shirk away from the responsibility.But, that chain of command cannot be substituted.

Sr. Adv. Harish Salve for respondent: One has to have faith in the SEC even though they have acted in partisan, supported the State and filed this SLP.

Salve: There was a deafening silence to the question your lordship asked, 'Why are they (SEC) aggrieved by the order?' There is a problem in the State and it has manifested multiple times.

Salve: The very fact that such an argument is raised the agenda is not genuine concern of deployment but the agenda is that don’t get central forces.

Salve:On 14 June they do not have an assessment plan when the process is to start and the State says have faith in us?

Salve: In the face of this the HC issued the direction that it did...The State has no real grievance. They are embarrassed to say that they do not want central forces, because they would not be under their control.

Sr. Adv. Maninder Singh for respondent in another petition: The most important is that date of withdrawal, all sorts of threats are there to withdraw. Deployment was to be made before withdrawal date. Nothing has been done.

Counsel for intervenor: Only to aid what has been submitted by Mr. Salve, with respect to videography and CCTV coverage.

Justice Nagarathna: That direction has not been issued?

Counsel: Yes, it has been issued, your lordship.

Sr. Adv. Guru Krishnakumar for respondent: I appeared for the writ petitioner before the HC. A report was filed by the SEC before the HC...it was so ambivalent....The State Election Commissioner was appointed on 7th June, when the process was to start from 8th June.

Arora: Much has been said. On 9th June morning a petition is filed...SEC holds a meeting on 9th June and today everyday is attributed to the SEC.

Arora: On 9th morning when only the schedule is announced and SEC is in the process of holding the meeting they file the petition. But where is the letter of these parties to the SEC that this is our grievance, some action be taken.

Order: The SLPs are directed against the orders passed by Cal HC...The writ petitions were in the nature of PIL seeking directions for conduct of free and fair elections in.... 61000 polling booths across the state so far as local bodies are concerned...

Order: Ld. Sr. Counsels appearing for SEC and State contended that direction for requisition for central forces was wholly unwarranted. Counsel for SEC contends that it is not within the jurisdictions of the SEC to requisition.

Order: The Counsel for State argued, though there may be need for additional forces. However, the need for additional forced to be summoned is within discretion of State Govt.

Order: ...We have considered submissions by rival parties. At the outset we find that the order has been preceded by earlier orders by the HC.

Order: The fact remains that the tenor of the order is to ultimately ensure that free and fair election is conducted since State is conducting election for local bodies on a single day. We find that the order of the HC does not call for any interference. SLP stands dismissed.