HC orders EC to preserve records of Nandigram polls
BANERJEE’S LAWYER SAID THAT THE COURT NOTED ELECTION PETITION DOES NOT SUFFER FROM DEFECT AS PER SECTION 86 (1) REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT
KOLKATA: The Calcutta high court on Wednesday ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to preserve all records and devices related to the polling in West Bengal’s Nandigram as it issued a notice to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suvendu Adhikari in connection with chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s plea challenging her defeat there in the March-april assembly polls.
Banerjee lost to Adhikari by a narrow margin of 1,956 votes from Nandigram even as the Trinamool Congress (TMC) swept back to power in the state for a third time in May.
“The court also ordered the Election Commission to preserve all records, and devices, such as EVMS (Electronic Voting Machines), and video recordings,” said Banerjee’s lawyer, Sanjay Basu. He added the court noted that the election petition does not suffer from any defect as per Section 86 (1) the Representation of the People Act.
Banerjee attended the court proceedings online as per the provisions of the Act.
The TMC demanded a recount shortly after the results were announced in May favour of the BJP candidate, but the ECI turned down the request.
Banerjee moved the high court alleging voting irregularities in her loss to her protégéturned-rival Adhikari. It was her first electoral loss in 32 years.
A single judge bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar was assigned the matter after justice Kausik Chanda recused himself from hearing the petition last week.
Banerjee asked for the transfer of the petition to some other judge citing “apprehension of bias”.
Chanda represented the BJP and its leaders in court cases before his elevation to the bench in 2019. The TMC also cited his photographs sharing the dais with BJP leaders including its state unit chief Dilip Ghosh to seek his recusal.
Chanda imposed a ₹5 lakh fine on Banerjee while recusing himself for the manner in which his recusal was sought.
“Such calculative, psychological, and offensive attempts to seek recusal need to be firmly repulsed and a cost of ₹5 lakh is imposed upon the petitioner,” justice Chanda said in his order on July 7. He ordered the money be used to fight Covid-19.
Chanda said it was preposterous to suggest that a judge having a past association with a political party as a lawyer should not get a case involving the same party or any of its members. “The past association of a judge with a political party by itself cannot form apprehension of bias.”