Calcutta High Court Stays Single Judge's Order, Upholds EC Directive on Poll Duty
The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling on Tuesday, stayed a single judge's order and upheld the Election Commission's directive appointing assistant professors as presiding officers at polling booths. The division bench, comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, emphasized that every citizen must prioritize national interests in such matters.
Court Rejects Exemption for Assistant Professors
The Election Commission had challenged the single judge's order, which had previously exempted assistant professors from election duty. The division bench, in its stay order, highlighted the extensive scope of work required for presiding officers and noted that the assistant professors failed to provide a valid explanation for why some faculty members had complied with the EC's directive while others sought exemption.
"Statutory duties must be followed by all citizens," the bench firmly stated, underscoring the legal obligation of citizens to participate in electoral processes when called upon.
Justification for Utilizing State Employees
The court elaborated that in large-scale operations like elections, central or state employees are primarily utilized. In this specific case, all the individuals involved are state government college teachers. "There is no obstacle to their appointment in this context," the bench held, dismissing any claims of impediments to their deployment.
Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the Election Commission could not specify the exact number of teachers needed at polling booths, given the dynamic nature of election logistics.
Timing of Intervention and Electoral Impact
The bench expressed concern that intervention just five days ahead of the polls could adversely affect the electoral process. The EC counsel informed the court that there are approximately 90,000 polling booths, requiring between 1,80,000 and 1,90,000 presiding officers to be kept ready for duty.
It was also highlighted that the duty assignments were made on March 19, while the writ petition challenging this was filed on April 8. This timing was stressed by the counsel to illustrate the potential disruption caused by last-minute legal challenges.
Key Points from the Ruling
- The Calcutta High Court stayed the single judge's order exempting assistant professors from election duty.
- The court upheld the Election Commission's order appointing them as presiding officers.
- Emphasis was placed on national interest and the statutory duties of all citizens.
- The bench noted that state government employees, including teachers, are routinely utilized for such large-scale operations.
- Concerns were raised about the timing of the legal challenge, potentially impacting election preparations.
This ruling reinforces the importance of civic participation and the legal framework supporting the Election Commission's authority in managing electoral logistics efficiently.
