The Calcutta High Court issued notice to Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari on Mamata Banerjee’s election petition challenging his Bhabanipur Assembly victory. The Court found the petition maintainable under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and sought responses from the respondents.
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari on an election petition filed by former West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mamata Banerjee challenging Adhikari’s election victory from the Bhabanipur Assembly constituency.
Justice Gaurang Kanth, while hearing the matter, observed that the petition filed by Banerjee appeared to satisfy the requirements prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court therefore refused to dismiss the petition at the preliminary stage under Section 86(1) of the Act.
The Court directed the respondents to submit their affidavits in opposition within four weeks, following which the petitioner would get four weeks to file a reply. The matter has been listed for further hearing after twelve weeks.
Background of the Election Dispute
The petition relates to the Assembly elections held in April, where Suvendu Adhikari defeated Mamata Banerjee from the Bhabanipur constituency. According to the election results, Adhikari secured 73,917 votes, defeating Banerjee who received 58,812 votes. The margin of victory was 15,105 votes.
ALSO READ: Shocking Murder Of CM Suvendu Adhikari’s PA: Court Sends Accused To 13-Day Police Custody
Banerjee approached the High Court challenging the validity of Adhikari’s election, alleging irregularities during the electoral process and questioning the fairness of the election outcome.
An election petition is a legal mechanism under the Representation of the People Act through which an unsuccessful candidate can challenge an election result before a competent court on grounds such as corrupt practices, procedural violations or irregularities affecting the result.
Observations of the court
During the hearing, Justice Kanth examined whether Banerjee’s petition met the legal requirements necessary for consideration. The Court observed that, at this stage, there was no reason to reject the petition under Section 86(1) of the RP Act.
The Court ordered,
“Learned Counsel for the respondents shall file their affidavits in opposition within four weeks. Reply to the same within four weeks thereafter,”
The Court’s decision means that the election challenge will now proceed for detailed examination.
Considering the allegations raised by Banerjee, the High Court directed authorities to preserve crucial election-related materials. The order specifically required preservation of CCTV footage from the counting centre along with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines used across polling booths in Bhabanipur. Such directions are generally issued to ensure that important evidence remains available during adjudication of election disputes.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Allows Suvendu Adhikari to Visit Violence-Hit Murshidabad
Before proceeding with the hearing, Justice Gaurang Kanth disclosed that his elder brother is a national spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a political party with which Suvendu Adhikari is associated. The judge informed the parties about the connection to avoid any future concerns regarding the hearing of the matter.
Justice Kanth said,
“My elder brother is a national spokersperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party and that might have some concern as far as this petition is concerned. So I will hear it only after full disclosure so that you don’t have any issues later,”
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, stated that he had no objection to Justice Kanth continuing to hear the case and expressed confidence in the judge. Following the disclosure, arguments on the merits of the petition continued.
Representing Banerjee, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay argued that serious irregularities occurred during the counting process. He alleged that the Returning Officer (RO) of the Bhabanipur constituency had a conflict of interest and questioned the circumstances surrounding the officer’s appointment.
According to the counsel, the same Returning Officer had also been associated with the Nandigram election in 2021, where Banerjee had earlier suffered defeat.
Bandyopadhyay submitted,
“The second ground is favoritism. The returning officer (RO) was also in Nandigram election in 2021. That time also my client lost. There are number of complaints against the RO,”
He further claimed that the Returning Officer had subsequently been posted to the Chief Minister’s Office, which, according to the petitioner, raised additional concerns.
The Court also recorded another ground raised by Banerjee in her petition relating to the deletion of voters from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. Banerjee alleged that a significant number of voters were unlawfully removed from the electoral rolls and that such deletions affected the electoral process. The petitioner contends that these alleged irregularities had a direct impact on the fairness of the election.
With the issuance of notice, the matter will now move into the next stage where Suvendu Adhikari and other respondents will have the opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Court’s eventual determination will depend upon examination of the evidence, including election records, CCTV footage, EVM-related material and the submissions made by both sides.