Panchayat polls: SC stays e-nominations in Bengal, says hold results of uncontested seats

The bench asked the SEC to ensure that the elections, scheduled for May 14, are held in “absolute fairness, keeping in view the concept of purity of an election in a democracy”. Acting on a plea filed by the CPI(M), the Calcutta High Court had, on May 8, asked the SEC to accept nominations which were filed electronically within the stipulated time.

The SEC, however, challenged this order in the Supreme Court, saying there was no time left and the HC had read the Information Technology Act into the Representation of the People Act. If the IT Act was to be applied, the nominations would have to be supported by digital signatures, contended senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi who appeared for the SEC. Procedures like scrutiny of nominations, withdrawal etc had been bypassed, he said, adding that the direction was most “absurd”.

The CJI said the only question was whether the IT Act can be applied to the RP Act. “Yes, given the background of the breakdown of law and order,” replied Senior Advocate Ashok Bhan, who appeared the CPI(M)’s West Bengal unit. But the CJI said that “unless there is an amendment in the election law, I don’t think it can happen”. Senior advocate P S Patwalia, who represented the BJP’s state unit, said that about 17,000 seats, constituting almost 34 per cent of the total panchayat seats, had been won unopposed by candidates of one party, and the election process was not being conducted properly. Patwalia also said the results of candidates who had won unopposed could not be declared before the poll process was over.

Dwivedi said the issue before the apex court did not pertain to candidates winning the polls unopposed but was about the Calcutta HC’s order asking the poll panel to accept the nominations sent via e-mail.

The CPI(M) had submitted a list of over 800 candidates who had sent their papers through e-mail, alleging that they were prevented from filing their nomination papers at the designated offices. The apex court posted the matter for further hearing on July 3.