The Calcutta High Court, while hearing a petition filed by Milan Pradhan, the Congress party's candidate for the Nandigram assembly by-election, has orally directed the State of West Bengal to allow him to contest the poll. The court made this observation during the hearing of Pradhan's plea challenging the rejection of his nomination papers by the returning officer.
The bench, comprising Justices [names not specified in evidence], noted that the grounds cited for rejecting Pradhan's nomination appeared to be based on procedural technicalities rather than substantive disqualifications under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court expressed concern that denying a candidate the right to contest on such grounds, without a reasoned and speaking order, could undermine the electoral process.
Pradhan's counsel argued that the returning officer had rejected the nomination papers on the basis of an alleged defect in the affidavit, specifically regarding the declaration of assets and liabilities. However, the petitioner contended that the affidavit was substantially compliant and that any minor discrepancies did not warrant rejection, especially when the candidate had been given no opportunity to rectify the alleged defects.
The State, represented by its advocate general, defended the returning officer's decision, asserting that the nomination was liable to rejection due to non-compliance with statutory requirements under Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The State maintained that the returning officer had acted within his jurisdiction and that the court should not interfere with the electoral process at this stage.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that the right to contest an election is a valuable right, and any restriction thereon must be strictly in accordance with law. The bench noted that in the absence of a detailed and reasoned order from the returning officer explaining the specific grounds of rejection, it was difficult to sustain the disqualification. The court emphasized that electoral democracy demands that candidates not be excluded from the fray on tenuous or unexplained grounds.
The court, therefore, orally directed the State to permit Milan Pradhan to contest the Nandigram by-election, subject to the outcome of the petition. The direction was made on an interim basis, with the court clarifying that it did not constitute a final judgment on the merits of the case. The bench added that the final relief would be determined after hearing the matter in detail and considering the propriety of allowing the candidate to proceed in the election.
The court further directed that the election proceedings continue, but that any declaration of result in respect of the Nandigram seat shall be subject to the final order of the court. This was to ensure that the rights of all parties are preserved and that the electoral process is not rendered infructuous pending adjudication.
The hearing was adjourned for a later date, with the court directing the parties to be ready to argue the substantive questions of law and fact regarding the validity of the nomination and the correctness of the returning officer's order. The court reiterated that its interim observation was based on the prima facie satisfaction that the rejection may not be legally sustainable, and that the balance of convenience lay in allowing the candidate to contest, pending final determination.