West Bengal Panchayat elections: Calcutta High Court quashes NHRC order appointing observer; says it usurped EC jurisdiction

The decision of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to appoint 'observers' for the upcoming panchayat elections in West Bengal amounted to usurping the jurisdiction of the West Bengal State Election Commission, the Calcutta High Court held on Wednesday [National Human Rights Commission vs West Bengal State Election Commission]..A bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, therefore, dismissed an appeal filed by NHRC against an order of a single-judge who had quashed the NHRC decision. In its order, the division bench held that the NHRC not only lacked jurisdiction while passing the said order on June 12 but also attempted to interfere with the ongoing elections process. "NHRC being a statutory authority has to act within the four corners of the statute. It is the duty of the SEC, being a constitutional authority to appoint observers. Therefore, the NHRC cannot encroach upon the jurisdiction of the SEC by appointing observers. The said order (of NHRC) amounts to usurping the jurisdiction SEC. It also amounts to interference in the conduct of elections by of SEC," the Court held in its order.The bench made it clear that the order appointing an observer by NHRC would clearly make in roads into the election process and would tantamount to interfering with the powers of the SEC which is not permissible. "The SEC being a constitutional authority vested with the power to conduct panchayat elections is duty bound to ensure free and fair election and for such purpose it has to identify sensitive constituencies which is a part and parcel of assessment of the law and order situation. The NHRC ought not to have passed the said order in the garb of protecting the human rights as the said direction seeks to encroach upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC to conduct free and fair Panchayat elections," the bench underlined..It noted that the NHRC had taken suo motu cognizance of an article published in a news magazine which highlighted the rampant violence across the State amid the election procedure.In its 33-page order, the bench held that the NHRC indeed has powers to take up suo motu cognizance of violation of human rights by public servants but while doing so, it first has to conduct an enquiry and cross check the claims. It noted that in the instant case the NHRC did not conduct any enquiry and solely relied upon the contents of the news article. "Therefore, we are of the view that the order impugned in the writ petition is not traceable to any of the functions which the NHRC is empowered to do under section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The NHRC order does not speak of any specific complaint of violation of human rights. It is also silent as to which right has been denied and to whom for which the NHRC had to intervene," the bench said in the order. Though the Commission can make an enquiry even suo motu but such inquiry has to be into a specific complaint of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant, the bench underscored.With these observations, the bench dismissed the appeal..Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi along with advocates Ranajit Chatterjee, Dipak Rankan Mukherjee, Ujjwal Sinha, Aniruddha Mitra and S Sonam appeared for the NHRC. Advocate General SN Mookherjee along with advocates Sirsanya Bandopadhyay and Arka Kumar Nag represented the State.Senior Advocate Jayanta Mitra along with advocates Kishore Datta, Sonal Sinha, Sumita Shaw, Suman Sengupta, Tarun Kumar Chatterjee, Sujit Gupta, Sayan Datta and Soumen Chatterjee represented the SEC..[Read Judgment]