Calcutta High Court Judge Criticizes Election Commission Over Polling Officer Appointments
In a sharp rebuke, Justice Krishna Rao of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday slammed the Election Commission of India (ECI) for failing to produce notifications regarding the appointment of assistant professors as presiding polling officers in the upcoming Assembly elections. The judge declared, "You (Election Commission of India) can appoint judges also under Section 26 (of Representation of People Act) as polling officers... I am ready to go," highlighting the EC's inconsistent notifications.
Case Background and Legal Arguments
A group of assistant professors approached the High Court, challenging an ECI order that directed them to serve as presiding officers during the elections. Represented by senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, they argued that a previous EC order stated that Group-A-equivalent officers, including teaching staff from universities and colleges, should not be drafted for polling duties without specific written reasons from the District Election Officer (DEO) when unavoidable.
Justice Rao, after hearing arguments from the EC's counsel based on Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, pointed out that the section allows the district election officer to appoint a presiding officer for each polling station as necessary, but prohibits appointing anyone employed by or working for a candidate. He remarked, "Then you can appoint judges also as polling officers because Section 26 does not say that a constitutional court cannot be appointed. We can also go to the polling office. I am ready to go. It is not a joke, every time you are changing your notification."
EC's Defense and Court's Response
The EC's counsel referenced 2023 notifications dealing with the role of micro-observers, emphasizing that their training began four months ago. In response, Bhattacharya clarified that the main demand was not to assign assistant professors the duty of a presiding officer, stating, "There is a pool of officers, let them be assigned. Let teachers not be humiliated like this."
The EC's counsel also argued that the requisition was for March 19, and the professors' court petition came too late, warning that interfering could halt the election process. Justice Rao countered, stating that even if filed the day before, the petition must be decided based on law, and demanded, "Show me the notification by which they have been requisitioned."
Judicial References and Next Steps
When the EC's counsel cited a Supreme Court order appointing judicial officers for specific roles, Justice Rao responded, "Okay, so I am referring the matter to the SC. The order of SC is being used by EC like this." He granted the EC another opportunity to provide facts supporting its actions, with the case scheduled for a hearing on Friday.
This case underscores ongoing tensions between educational institutions and election authorities over the drafting of academic staff for poll duties, raising questions about legal compliance and procedural transparency in election management.
