Panchayat poll violence: Getting elected uncontested robs voters of right to choice, says Calcutta High Court

Getting elected uncontested robs voters of their right to choice, the Calcutta High Court observed on Monday while ordering the West Bengal State Election Commission (SEC) to examine allegations that names of candidates who intended to contest the upcoming panchayat polls were abruptly deleted from the final list of contesting candidates in Bhangore district. [Beshaka Mondal & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors; Moselma Begum and ors v. The State of West Bengal].Justice Amrita Sinha emphasised that as India is a democratic country, people have a right to choose a representative or a candidate of their choice. Where there is no rival candidate contesting an election, it is implied that “all is not right”, she observed.“Getting elected uncontested robs off the electors to exercise their choice. Even though there is a candidate interested to contest the election, but has been denied to contest the same, implies that all is not right in the process and the loopholes in the process is required to be plugged immediately. All the intending candidates should be permitted to face the electors to save the democracy,” the judgment stated..The Court also noted that those in power tend to to overpower and rule the people, so that they do not lose power. However, a candidate “ought not to be permitted to win on a walkover from the contesting candidate."“The contesting candidates ought to be ready to face the electorate as there is no credit to win uncontested. The Commission ought to act in a neutral manner and not take sides at the time of election…After all, no person has a vested right to be elected uncontested. The moment a candidate files nomination he is aware that he has to contest or compete against one or more candidates for a particular seat.".The judgment emphasized that election contests ought to be healthy and corrupt practices such as preventing or obstructing a prospective candidate from filing nominations should not take place..The petitioners before the Court included persons belonging to the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Rashtrya Secular Majlis Party (RSMP), who claimed that they faced violence while on their way to file nominations.Owing to the ruckus created, allegedly by agents of the ruling political party of the State (Trinamool Congress Party), there was some delay in filing the nominations as well, the Court was told. All the same, their nominations were initially accepted, before their names were abruptly removed from the final list of contesting candidates..The Court has now ordered the SEC to examine the veracity of these allegations and take necessary steps to redress the situation by June 28. If the SEC finds that the names of the petitioner-candidates were wrongly deleted, they should be permitted to contest the elections, the Court added..In her judgment, Justice Sinha also observed that the High Court is being faced with an unprecedented situation where candidates, for no fault on their part, were forcibly prevented, threatened and obstructed from submitting their nominations within time.In such a situation, the Court questioned if the ruling party’s members and supporters, who allegedly obstructed rival political candidates, can be allowed to reap the benefit of their acts.“Will the same not amount to tolerating the illegal/arbitrary action on the part of the ruling disposition? Why will the candidates who unleash fear and unrest in the society be permitted to steal a march over the candidates who fail to match their terror tactics? Will the same not amount to interfering with the free and fair election process which is the mandate of the Constitution and the statutory law?” the Court remarked..The Court took note that there was a series of such cases where uniform allegations are being made of violence, assault, arson, murder, rape threats etc. during the filing of nominations process in certain constituencies..Justice Sinha went on to question whether the High Court can keep its eyes shut in such cases, even as she acknowledged that there were limits to its powers in election matters.A Constitutional Court cannot be taken to be so powerless so as not to rise to the occasion and prevent perpetration of injustice and act in aid of dispensation of justice, she added.“Can the Constitutional Court keep its eyes shut when there are definite instances in support of the submission that there were genuine and valid reasons for not being able to file the nomination papers by the prospective candidates within the prescribed time period? Will that not amount to polluting the free and fair election process? Can the same be taken as proper democracy? Will the same not amount to infringement on the statutory right of a candidate to contest an election?”.Justice Sinha observed that people may lose interest in elections if such issues are left undecided and such illegalities are allowed to be legalized.“With the sole idea of protecting the democracy, the Commission should act in a very fair, unbiased, neutral and transparent manner,” the judgment said.The fact that instead of the SEC, it was the State that had vociferously opposed the present petition, was also taken note of..The petitioners before the Court had claimed that persons from the ruling party had terrorised government officers into not distributing nomination papers and that the State Police stood by as mute spectators.Three persons died during the violence and the Governor was also forced to inspect the area when the situation spun out of control, the petitioners said.However, the Returning Officers accepted the nominations of the petitioners, despite the delay. While so, the petitioners claimed that their names were dropped without reason from the final list of contesting candidates, prompting them to move the High Court for relief..[Read Judgments]