NEW DELHI: In a big victory for Trinamool Congress, the Supreme Court refused to examine on Friday whether alleged violence by ruling party workers led to its candidates winning over 20,000 West Bengal panchayat seats unopposed and ordered the state election commission (SEC) to notify the results, which were stayed by the SC on May 10.

It also said anyone having a grievance could file a plea in the appropriate court within 30 days of the notification of results.

Though the SEC had filed the appeal challenging a Calcutta HC order allowing filing of nominations through email, it was used by the CPM and BJP to jointly demand that the SC intervene to maintain purity and fairness of the election process given that 20,159 of the total 58,692 gram panchayat, panchayat samiti and zila parishad seats went uncontested as TMC workers pulverised opponent party candidates with violence and prevented them from filing nominations.

EC counsel Amarendra Saran and West Bengal counsel Vikas Singh reeled out statistics to show that the percentage of seats going uncontested was far higher in other states compared to West Bengal. TMC counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay carried the day for the party by showing the rulebook to the court and pointing out that arguments in the SC about violence were an afterthought as no such pleading was made before the HC, though the petitioners had moved the HC repeatedly over the panchayat elections.

Bandopadhyay’s submission — “Ram, Shyam, Jadu, Madu (Tom, Dick and Harry) cannot question or challenge results on the ground that they were won unopposed as the law permitted only aggrieved parties to file a proper election petition” — found acceptance with a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Chandrachud said, “Any dispute in regard to the validity of the election has to be espoused by adopting a remedy which is known to law, namely through an election petition. It is at the trial of an election petition that factual disputes can be resolved on the basis of evidence.”

“For this court to set aside elections to over 20,000 seats would be to prejudge the basic issue as to whether in each of those constituencies, the election stands vitiated by obstruction having been caused to candidates from filing their nominations. A general assumption of this nature cannot be made. Ultimately, whether this is correct would depend upon the evidence adduced in the facts of individual cases where such a grievance has been made in an election petition.”

The bench further said, “We find there are several reasons why it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction to interdict the declaration of results of uncontested seats... proceedings before the HC were brought by several political parties, each of whom would have been well aware of the situation on the ground and the need to formulate an adequate basis in fact to invoke jurisdiction of the HC. Absent such a factual foundation, the HC dealt with only the issue — filing of nominations through electronic means. No other plea was raised.”

The SC set aside the HC’s direction to the EC to accept nominations through electronic means and said, “Neither the Panchayat Elections Act nor Rules contemplate filing of nominations in electronic form. The HC ought not to have issued mandatory directions of this nature.”

However, the SC did not dwell on the consequences of setting aside of the HC order as some of the candidates who filed their nominations through electronic means had won the elections. If their nominations through email are termed bad in law, then they might lose their panchayat seats.

