Calcutta HC asks Suvendu Adhikari to respond to Mamata Banerjee's election petition

The Calcutta High Court has formally requested a response from Suvendu Adhikari concerning an election petition lodged by Mamata Banerjee, which challenges Adhikari's electoral victory. This development signifies a crucial stage in the legal battle stemming from the West Bengal Assembly elections. The petition, filed by former Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, contests the election results of the Bhabanipur Assembly constituency. The court, under the bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth, has assessed the petition and deemed it maintainable under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, thereby clearing the path for a substantive judicial review. Consequently, the court has mandated the preservation of all relevant evidence, including CCTV footage, Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines used during the election. This preservation order is crucial for ensuring the integrity of the electoral process and facilitating a thorough investigation into the allegations. Mamata Banerjee's petition raises several serious allegations, including irregularities in the counting process and concerns regarding the appointment of the Returning Officer. She contends that these issues materially affected the election outcome. The legal challenge is rooted in the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections, where Suvendu Adhikari secured a victory over Mamata Banerjee by a margin of 15,105 votes in the Bhabanipur constituency, a seat historically considered a stronghold for the Trinamool Congress. This case is not without its preceding legal complexities. Notably, the election petition concerning the Nandigram constituency, where Mamata Banerjee lost to Suvendu Adhikari by a narrow margin of 1,956 votes in the 2021 Assembly elections, has seen extensive legal proceedings. Mamata Banerjee had initially filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging the Nandigram results, alleging corrupt practices by Adhikari and discrepancies in the counting process. The Nandigram case was initially heard by Justice Kausik Chanda, who later recused himself after Banerjee sought his recusal due to alleged proximity with the BJP. The case was then assigned to Justice Shampa Sarkar, who directed the preservation of all election-related documents and devices. The Nandigram petition has been pending, with its last recorded hearing in December 2021, and a cost of Rs 5 lakh was imposed on Banerjee for a recusal application. Furthermore, Justice Rajasekhar Mantha of the Calcutta High Court had recused himself from hearing two cases related to Suvendu Adhikari in May 2023. This recusal came after the state government had approached the Supreme Court seeking a speedy hearing of these cases. Justice Mantha had previously granted a stay on 26 FIRs against Adhikari and directed the state not to register new FIRs without court permission. The recusal by Justice Mantha also followed protests by lawyers against his orders, which some alleged granted "blanket protection" to Adhikari. These instances highlight the contentious nature of cases involving Suvendu Adhikari and their sensitivity within the legal and political landscape of West Bengal. The current proceedings in the Bhabanipur election petition are expected to draw significant attention due to the high-profile nature of the political figures involved and the serious allegations of electoral malpractice. The court's admission of the petition and subsequent orders for evidence preservation underscore the judiciary's role in ensuring electoral accountability. The legal battle signifies a critical juncture in West Bengal's political and judicial history, with the outcome having potential ramifications for future electoral disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest