SC dismisses plea for Bengal assembly elections to be held in 8 phases

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has rejected the petition challenging the assembly elections in West Bengal in phase eight. It was said in the petition that elections are to be held in four more states along with West Bengal, but the voting schedule has not been kept so detailed in them. The Election Commission has kept the election period in West Bengal longer than the rest of the states without giving any proper reason.

In this petition of lawyer Manohar Lal Sharma, there was an objection to the raising of slogans of Jai Shri Ram during the election campaign in the state. According to the petition, raising such slogans is to seek votes on religious grounds. The Supreme Court has given its verdict against it. The petitioner had demanded a CBI inquiry against Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Shubhendu Adhikari, who recently joined BJP.

Why didn't you file a petition in the High Court? - Supreme Court

Today, the matter was found on the bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna, and V Ramasubramaniam. The bench first questioned the first point of the petition. The Chief Justice asked that if there is any problem with the election process, then why did not file a petition in the High Court for this? The petitioner replied that the Supreme Court had earlier said that the petition cannot be filed in the High Court after the election notification is issued. To this, the Chief Justice said, "Your petition is not an election petition. We do not think that we have given any decision which prevents the public interest litigation in the High Court after the election notification is issued."

The judges refused to give time to the petitioner

The petitioner referred to the decision in the Mohinder Singh Gill case. On this, the judges asked them to show the part of the decision that prevents them from going to the High Court. The lawyers could not show this. He demanded time from the court. The judges refused and said that there is no such thing in the judgment. Sensing the possibility of the petition being dismissed, advocate ML Sharma said, "Two more important points have been raised in my petition." On this, the Chief Justice said, "We have read your petition fully. We are rejecting it."

It is worth noting that under Article 324 of the Constitution, the decision on the election process comes under the Election Commission. The commission has been empowered to take decisions on the election process, monitor it, and control it. Under this, the Commission assesses the security and other conditions in an area and takes other decisions, including the duration of the election. But the petitioner said that the Commission does not have the power to keep the duration of the election process in different states separately.