Calcutta HC Admits Mamata's Bhabanipur Election Petition; Orders Evidence Preservation

The Calcutta High Court recently admitted an election petition filed by former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, challenging the victory of Suvendu Adhikari from the Bhabanipur Assembly Constituency in the 2026 state assembly elections. This significant judicial development occurred on June 23, 2026, when the single-judge bench of Justice Gouranga Kant deemed the petition maintainable, stating it disclosed a valid cause of action and met the requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. [2, 3, 11] During the proceedings, Justice Kant issued crucial directives aimed at preserving electoral evidence. He ordered the Returning Officer of the Election Commission to securely maintain all Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines, and CCTV footage from the counting centre at Sakhawat Memorial Government Girls' School. The court explicitly mandated that no records connected to the counting process should be destroyed or altered without its prior permission. This measure underscores the court's intent to ensure a thorough and fair review of the election results. [2, 5, 8, 11] A notable moment during the hearing was Justice Gouranga Kant's voluntary disclosure regarding a potential conflict of interest. He informed both parties that his elder brother serves as a spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the party to which Suvendu Adhikari belongs. Justice Kant offered the option to seek a transfer of the case to another bench if either party had any objections. However, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing Mamata Banerjee, affirmed their complete faith in Justice Kant's impartiality and declined the offer for recusal, stating they had no objection to him hearing the matter. [2, 5, 8] Mamata Banerjee filed this election petition on June 16, 2026, following her defeat to Suvendu Adhikari in the Bhabanipur constituency by a margin of 15,105 votes. [4, 5, 8, 12, 14] She had alleged irregularities during the counting process and questioned the fairness of the election outcome. [4, 5] The Bhabanipur seat, traditionally a stronghold for the Trinamool Congress (TMC), became the focus of intense political scrutiny after this result, which also saw the BJP form the government in West Bengal. [3, 14] It is important to note that this recent development pertains to the Bhabanipur constituency in the 2026 elections, and should not be confused with Mamata Banerjee's separate election petition challenging Suvendu Adhikari's victory in the Nandigram constituency in the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections. In the 2021 Nandigram case, Justice Kaushik Chanda had recused himself from hearing the petition in July 2021, after Banerjee's lawyers raised concerns about his alleged links to the BJP from his time as a lawyer. Justice Chanda had then imposed a fine on Banerjee for the manner in which the recusal was sought. [6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] The Nandigram petition remains sub judice. [2] The admission of the Bhabanipur petition paves the way for a substantive judicial review of the election results, a process that is expected to garner significant attention from legal experts and political observers in India. The next hearing for this case is scheduled after two months, allowing time for respondents to submit their affidavits. [2, 4, 8] The court's decision to admit the petition and order preservation of crucial evidence highlights the stringent legal framework governing electoral disputes under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in India. [3, 4] The case has significant implications for the political landscape of West Bengal and national politics, given the high-profile individuals involved and the allegations of electoral misconduct. It underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that allegations of irregularities are thoroughly investigated through due legal process. The decision by Mamata Banerjee's counsel to proceed with Justice Kant, despite the disclosure, also reflects a level of confidence in the judicial system's ability to remain impartial. [5, 8]

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest