However, the Supreme Court by virtue of its June 28 ruling on the West Bengal Panchayat polls, effectively rewrote what could have been a tactical victory into a politically embarrassing setback for the TMC. Not only did the apex court set fresh dates for a five phase poll, it settled in a matter of minutes a legal wrangle that seemed intractable at the Kolkata High Court Division bench.

The TMC objective was two fold: (a) either to postpone the panchayat polls, failing which, (b) to conduct it on its own terms without any role for the SEC. The reasons: the recent exposure of the open linkage of top TMC leaders with the Rs 30,000 crore Saradha chit fund scam and a deteriorating law and order situation, dominated by rape cases and political clashes.

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee planned to bring forward the panchayat polls, preferably by end 2012, in the flush of her sweeping election victory in 2011. In its impatience, the state government would not even allow electoral rolls to be upgraded to include new voters. Their number: 30 lakhs. The State Election Commission, more respectful of Constitutional obligations than Ms Banerjee, would not proceed without such a revision. In the process it drove West Bengal’s eternally angry Chief Minister into a frenzy. Battle lines were drawn between her and Ms Meera Pandey, the SEC head in the state. Much to Ms Banerjee’s chagrin, in Ms Pandey she found she had met her match.

From Sept 2012, the SEC urged upon the State Government to make security arrangements for the panchayat polls, by ensuring the services of 800 companies of para military forces. From Sept 2012 to this day, the State government has never indicated just how many policemen and security personnel it would seek either from the centre or other states. Its reluctance to come out with a concrete deployment figure despite repeated queries from the SEC became more noticeable after the Saradha financial scam. If the poll was at all to be held now, in the post Saradha phase, the TMC’s idea was to conduct the entire operation using only the state police force. Since many policemen had been appointed after 2011, there was little doubt that this would enable the TMC to enjoy an unfair advantage over all other parties.

The Saradha scam shook up and people of the state, financially ruining lakhs of poor people. It had its ramifications in NE India, Bihar, Orissa and Jharkhand. An estimated loss of public savings to the tune of some 30,000 crore was reported. So far, at least 20 people including Saradha agents and other staff and deprived depositors, have committed suicide and their numbers continue to rise.

TMC leaders had good reasons to retreat into the woodwork. Its top leaders had attended gala functions organised by Saradha boss Sudipta Sen and publicly endorsed his credentials in Kolkata and the districts. TMC MPs had been appointed Saradha brand ambassadors or the CEOs, of Saradha concerns. Ms Banerjee, advertised as “the symbol of honesty” in TMC posters, had inaugurated newspapers launched by the Saradha group. In official functions she presided over, cycles and ambulances gifted by the group were distributed among local people. There were reports that Sen had bought some of Mamata’s “paintings”, including one at a price of Rs 1.86 crore! She ordered official libraries only to purchase the group’s newspapers, leaving out more established ones and ensured a flow of government ads to the group’s publications.

With panchayat polls so near, the situation was too hot for comfort. Most of the millions of Saradha chit fund contributors were very poor rural folk, from Coochbehar to Midnapore. The TMC reacted quickly to the altered situation by going slow on preparations for the polls. A blatant procrastination marked its dealings with the SEC. It questioned the Constitutional powers enshrined for the SEC, challenged its administrative jurisdiction despite clear Supreme Court rulings. It argued over the phases of polling and the number of security personnel to be employed, never giving a figure of its own despite proddings from the SEC and later the Kolkata High Court. The phraseology it adopted for its discussions with the SEC was significant — sometimes describing it (yes, the SEC!) as a schoolboy, or a capricious lady, on another occasion!

Worse, it brazenly flouted the SEC’s recommendations. During the nomination filing phase, it had been agreed that over 30,000 policemen would be on security duty. In fact, the state deployed only around 3000! No wonder using strong arm tactics in many districts, over 12% of the gram panchayat seats were cornered by TMC men without contests, as opposition candidates were not allowed to file nominations. This was reminiscent of the strong arm tactics adopted earlier by the ruling CPI(M).

The state government took recourse to a law enacted under Left front regime, which more or less equated the administrative powers of the government and the SEC in election related matters. But under the Constitution, the Election commission whether at the state or central levels had powers overriding those of the state government during the entire process of electioneering. It could virtually takeover the services of state government officials during the conduct of any election. But the state government maintained that its officers would remain under its control, contrary to the directives of the Supreme court in many cases.

The SEC naturally pressed for the striking down on the State act because of its obvious conflict with the Central acts at the higher level. Thoroughly exasperated over the apparent stonewalling and provocative attitude of the state government, the SEC f approached the Kolkata High court and then the Supreme Court, for relief.

As expected the TMC accused the CPI(M), the BJP and the Cong(I) along with the SEC and the Maoists, for trying to delay or postpone the panchayat polls. The line was peddled by Ms Banerjee in her public meetings. The opposition parties hit back making the same allegation against the ruling TMC. It is a free for all in West Bengal over panchayat polls in July 2013.(IPA Service)