‘Holding polls can’t be licence for violence’: SC dismisses pleas against Calcutta HC order on central forces deployment

Justice Nagarathna told the state and the SEC that the “the reason, as the HC, I think, has recorded 2013, 2018… there has been a history… Holding elections cannot be a licence for violence… Therefore, to hold free and fair polls… We must appreciate that you are one of the states where we have a democratic set-up, right up to the lower levels… grassroot level elections are taking place. But at the same time, elections cannot be accompanied by violence. If persons are not able to go and file their nominations or if those who have filed their nominations are ultimately finished off, or there are group clashes, where is free and fair election?”.

The bench asked the SEC why it should have a problem with the HC order which was in aid of the discharge of the Commission’s responsibility to hold free and fair polls.

The state complained that the HC had directed deployment of forces in all districts “irrespective of whether sensitive or not, as if the entire force of the State of West Bengal is inadequate and incompetent”.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for the state, also said the HC had been informed that West Bengal had requisitioned forces from five states – Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Punjab.

Justice Nagarathna said this showed that “even according to you, the police force as of now is inadequate to meet the situation. Therefore, you have requisitioned police forces from half-a-dozen states. What the HC has done is, instead of requisitioning from half-a-dozen states, let the Central police force come. Ultimately, the HC has said that expenditure will be borne by the Centre and not by the state… 61,000-odd booths are going to polls. You have in a way said that due to inadequacy of police force, to conduct polls in a free and fair manner, you have yourself requisitioned additional police forces”.

The state said that of the 61,636 polling booths, only 189 have been identified as sensitive and the state has more than 50,000-60,000 police personnel capable of being deployed.

“Additionally, there are 8,000 freshly recruited constables… The implication for calling additional forces is never to say what the state has is inadequate,” it said, adding that additional forces are only as an insurance in case a situation develops in some area.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the SEC, said the first petition seeking Central forces was moved before the HC on June 9 and asked what was the need for it when the Commission was going about the process.

Taking exception to the HC order, she said it is not within the domain of the SEC to requisition any Central or order state forces. “That is always done by the state. SEC can only make a request to the state government which is required to comply with that”. Secondly, forces have to be deployed at the booths, not the whole district, she said.

Explaining the arrangements put in place by the Commission to ensure free and fair polls, the senior counsel said that this time it had also deployed IAS officers as special observers in every district.

Justice Nagarathna, however, questioned the Commission’s objections to the HC order. “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the SEC to conduct the election in a free and fair manner. The question is: how are you aggrieved by this order?… You have yourself asked for deployment of forces to the state government. From where the forces come, it is not your concern. How is your SLP maintainable? In fact, it is an aid to your discharging of responsibilities… Whether you have the state forces or in addition you have forces from the neighbouring states, or whether Central forces come, you cannot have any grievance on that,” she said.

Upholding the HC order, she said because of it “you can be rest assured that it’s not just (at) the sensitive booths, even (at) the non-sensitive booths, there would be free and fair polls because of the… Conduct of elections cannot be a licence to violence. Having regard to the past history in the state and the fact that what is happening at the ground level, the petition was entertained by the HC and certain directions were passed. As far as the SEC is concerned, it (the HC order) is an aid to discharge of your responsibilities” and, therefore, the SEC cannot have any quarrel on that.

Agarwal said the HC order had directed Central forces for the entire state, not just sensitive booths. “So what we have is that the entire State of West Bengal, which is divided into various constituencies and districts, till the time these elections take place, is under the blanket cover of Central paramilitary forces,” he said.

Disagreeing, Justice Nagarthna said “the forces are for the purpose of conducting a fair poll. Therefore, it is not that it is throughout the length and breadth of the state…. The nitty gritty of it will not be known. Because as and when the ground situation develops or reality emerges, it is for the forces too to have the responsibility and there will be coordination ultimately between the state government and the forces. They are not going to work unilaterally. How they are going to be deployed… that is a matter to be decided as and when the situation emerges. It is not for the court at this stage to imagine as to what would happen”.

Appearing for Suvendu Adhikari, Leader of the Opposition in the state Assembly, Senior Advocate Harish Salve said there was no ambiguity in the HC order. He said the SEC was acting in a “partisan” manner “and supported the state and filed this SLP”.

Also Read

PM Modi US Visit Live Updates: PM Modi arrives in US on landmark state vi...

Odisha train tragedy: CBI questions junior engineer, seals house ahead of...

Toxic syrups: WHO probe flags 20 products in India, Indonesia

Air conditioned driver cabins to soon be mandatory in trucks, says Nitin ...

He said “the problem is if the State of West Bengal thinks that the Union forces are an invading army, that mindset cannot be brought to the Supreme Court” and there was “deafening silence from the SEC” on the court’s query “why are they aggrieved by this order”.