Calcutta High Court Judge Criticizes Election Commission Over Poll Duty Appointments
In a sharp rebuke on Thursday, Justice Krishna Rao of the Calcutta High Court slammed the Election Commission for its failure to produce notifications justifying the appointment of assistant professors as presiding polling officers in the upcoming assembly elections in West Bengal. The judge expressed frustration with the EC's handling of the matter, emphasizing the need for legal clarity and procedural integrity.
Legal Challenge by Assistant Professors
A group of assistant professors has challenged the Election Commission's order directing them to serve as presiding officers for the Bengal elections. They argued that the EC, in a previous directive, had stated that "Group A-equivalent senior officers, including teaching staff of universities and colleges, should not be drafted for polling duties on polling station premises without specific reasons to be recorded in writing by the District Election Officer (DEO)." This contradiction has raised significant legal questions about the EC's actions.
Justice Rao's Strong Remarks
During the hearing, Justice Rao did not mince words, stating, "You (EC) can appoint judges also under Section 26 (of the Representation of People Act) as polling officers... I am ready to go." He gave the poll panel another opportunity to present facts supporting its decision, highlighting the seriousness of the issue. The judge added, "We can also go to the polling office... It is not a joke, every time you are changing your notification," underscoring his concern over inconsistent practices.
Arguments from Both Sides
Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, representing the assistant professors, emphasized that their primary demand is to avoid being assigned presiding officer duties. He argued, "There is a pool of officers; let them be assigned. Let teachers not be humiliated like this." On the other hand, the EC counsel pointed out that the requisition was for March 19 and that the professors had approached the court too late, warning that "at this stage, interfering with the entire procedure will halt the election."
Judicial Scrutiny and Referral to Supreme Court
Justice Rao countered the EC's timing argument by asserting that even if the petition was filed at the last minute, it must be decided according to law. He demanded, "Show me the notification by which they have been requisitioned." When the EC counsel cited a Supreme Court order appointing judicial officers for similar duties, Justice Rao responded, "Okay, so I am referring the matter to the SC. The order of SC is being used by EC like this," indicating a potential escalation of the case to higher judicial authorities.
Upcoming Hearing and Implications
The case is scheduled to be heard again on Friday, with significant implications for election procedures and the rights of educational staff. This legal battle highlights ongoing tensions between administrative efficiency and legal compliance in India's electoral process, particularly in sensitive regions like West Bengal.
Key points from the hearing include:
- Justice Rao's criticism of the EC's lack of proper notifications.
- The assistant professors' challenge based on previous EC directives.
- Arguments over timing and potential election disruptions.
- The possibility of referring the matter to the Supreme Court for further review.
This development underscores the importance of transparent and lawful appointment processes in maintaining the integrity of democratic elections, as courts continue to play a crucial role in overseeing electoral authorities.
