The Calcutta High Court has restrained the West Bengal government from issuing a notification for Kolkata Municipal Corporation elections until November 6, while it considers a legal challenge to the delimitation of KMC wards from 144 to 209.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Arjun Roy passed the interim order on Wednesday after hearing a petition challenging the legality of the delimitation notification issued in September. The court reserved its order after observing that the matter could not be finally decided during the hearing.
The state government has been directed not to issue any election notification based on the disputed delimitation notification in the meantime. The case is scheduled to be heard again on November 6, when the court is likely to pronounce its order.
The petitioner’s senior advocate, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, argued that the delimitation notification was issued when there was no elected KMC council. The corporation was dissolved on June 8 and its former chairperson, Smita Pandey, was appointed as administrator. Bhattacharya contended that the administrator had been assigned administrative responsibilities and could not exercise the legislative or policy-making powers of an elected corporation.
He also argued that the delimitation exercise was required to be undertaken by the State Election Commission and alleged that the process lacked proper application of mind. The petition questioned whether population, geographical location and administrative considerations had been adequately assessed while redrawing the wards. It also alleged that the exercise could favour a particular political party, a claim that remains part of the petitioner’s case and has not been established by the court.
During the hearing, the bench questioned whether the KMC Act allowed the state government to act on the recommendation of an administrator appointed by the state itself. The judges observed that this could create a circular arrangement in which the state effectively issued instructions to itself. The bench also said it was prima facie satisfied that the powers of an elected corporation could not, by law, be vested in an administrator by the state government.
Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra, appearing for the state, opposed the petition. He argued that the government was not required to obtain approval from the civic body’s council for the delimitation exercise and maintained that the administrator had been vested with all the powers of the corporation. He also questioned whether the petition was maintainable under Article 243ZG of the Constitution, which restricts challenges to election-related processes except through an election petition after elections.
The court further noted that the petitioners had not challenged an amendment to the KMC Act that was subsequently enacted. It observed that once the proposed amendment became law, any challenge might have to be directed against the legislation rather than only against the administrative notification. Bhattacharya replied that the petition had been filed before the amendment was enacted and concerned the legal basis on which the delimitation process had been carried out.
The Election Commission, represented during the proceedings, told the court that it had no information on when the KMC elections would be notified and that the decision rested with the state government. The government had issued the ward-related notification on September 11. No election notification can be issued on the basis of that disputed delimitation notification until the court’s next order on November 6.
