West Bengal State El... v. Communist Party Of I..., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

[Cited Order (2)], (Record of Proceedings)

Disposition

Attorney(S)

Amarendra Sharan, Shyam Divan, P.S. Patwalia, Sidharth Luthra, Kalyan Bandopadhyay and Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya, Senior Advocates [Kunal Chatterji (Advocate-on-Record), Ms Maitrayee Banerjee, Petitioner-in-Person, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Kabir Shankar Bose, Nachiketa Joshi (Advocate-on-Record), Ujjaval Kumar, Bharat Sood, Zoheb Hossain (Advocate-on-Record), Suhan Mukherjee, Ms Astha Sharma, Harsh Gursahni, Rajendra Dangwal, Chanchal Kr. Ganguli (Advocate-on-Record), Ms Narmada, Subhasish Bhowmick (Advocate-on-Record), Shamim Ahmed, Goldy Goyal, A.K. Mishra, Honey Verma, Santi Ranjan Das, Anindo Mukherjee, Bijan Ghosh and Ms Aparna Bhat, Advocates] for the appearing parties.

Judges

Dipak Misra, C.J.
A.M. Khanwilkar
Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter concerns the recent Panchayat elections in the State of West Bengal. During the hearing, counsel for the West Bengal State Election Commission produced a chart showing that a substantial proportion of seats at the Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayat levels were uncontested—24.61%, 33.59% and 34.66% respectively, amounting to 20,159 uncontested seats out of 58,692 in total. Various petitions and applications have been filed questioning the fairness of these elections. After considering preliminary submissions, the Court adjourned the matter for further hearing and directed that additional information be placed on affidavit.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner: West Bengal State Election Commission

Requested an adjournment to file a detailed affidavit containing relevant information.
Asserted that every complaint received regarding the elections had been duly addressed by the Commission.

Respondent 1 and Supporting Applicants

Contended that the unusually high number of uncontested seats casts serious doubt on the fairness and purity of the electoral process.
Argued that such figures create “a sense of puzzle and inconceivable shock,” suggesting systemic issues in the conduct of the elections.

Respondent 4

Highlighted that, despite the large number of uncontested seats, the Commission received only 1388 complaints at the Gram Panchayat level, 285 at the Panchayat Samiti level, and 88 at the Zilla Parishad level.
Maintained that the low volume of complaints undermines allegations of widespread electoral malpractice.

Respondent 2: State of West Bengal

Denied any law-and-order problems during the elections.
Asserted that the elections were conducted in a fair and proper manner.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted the extensive number of uncontested seats and expressed concern that such figures could indicate underlying irregularities, remarking that “something is rotten in the State of Denmark.” However, rather than making a definitive finding, the Court granted the State Election Commission’s request for time to submit a comprehensive affidavit. The Court also took note of the contrasting positions: while some respondents viewed the figures as inherently suspicious, others emphasized the limited number of formal complaints as evidence of electoral propriety. Recognising the need for fuller factual material, the Court deemed it appropriate to defer substantive determination until additional data are furnished.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The matter is adjourned and listed for further hearing at 2:00 p.m. on 4-7-2018.

Immediate Effect: The parties have been given additional time to submit further material, particularly an affidavit from the State Election Commission. No conclusive findings were made, and no new legal precedent was set at this stage.

Show full summary ...

West Bengal State Election Commission And Another v. Communist Party Of India (Marxist) Its Authorised Member, West Bengal State Committee And Others

Judgment

1. Heard Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, West Bengal State Election Commission; Mr Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1; Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2; Mr Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 4 and Mr P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 7.

2. In the course of hearing, a chart has been filed by Mr P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel. On a perusal of the chart, it is manifest that there were elections at Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayat levels. The total seats at the three levels were 825, 9217 and 48,650, respectively. 203, 3096 and 16,860 seats remained uncontested as far as the Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayat elections, respectively are concerned. If we put it on a percentage basis, it would be 24.61%, 33.59% and 34.66%, respectively.

3. On a different kind of calculation, it is perceptible that out of 58,692 total seats at all the levels, the uncontested seats are 20,159. Mr Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1; Mr Santi Ranjan Das, learned counsel for an applicant and Mr Sridhar Chandra Bagari, petitioner-in-person in SLP (C) No. 15123 of 2018 submit that the situation creates a sense of puzzle and inconceivable shock, especially when elections are expected to be held in a fair and pure manner. The emphasis on the purity of election definitely extends to the concept of a fair contest. There may be a situation, as the learned counsel for the respondents would submit, where certain seats may go uncontested. But when such a huge number of seats go uncontested, there is a feeling that something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

4. Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays that the matter be listed tomorrow, so that he can place the relevant information on affidavit.

5. Mr Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 4 submits that out of 16,860 seats in the Gram Panchayat elections, hardly 1388 complaints were received and in case of Panchayat Samiti, only 285 complaints were received, whereas the number was 88 in case of Zila Parishad. The submission is that when there is no complaint received by the State Election Commission, the colossal allegation made by the other respondents does not hold water.

6. At this juncture, Mr Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel would add that wherever a complaint was received, that has been duly dealt with by the State Election Commission. Mr Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 2, State of West Bengal would contend that there was no law and order problem, as alleged by the respondents, and the elections were conducted in a fair and proper manner.

7. Let the matter be listed for further hearing at 2.00 p.m. tomorrow (4-7-2018).

Court Masters

West Bengal State El... v. Communist Party Of I...