Election Commission Demands Explanation from Bengal Government

Background of the Issue

NEW DELHI: The Election Commission (EC) has expressed strong discontent with the West Bengal government’s decision to unilaterally exonerate Tathagata Mondal, the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) for the Baruipur Purba assembly constituency. The state also imposed only a minor penalty against Sudipta Das, AERO of Moyna AC. This decision comes despite clear instructions issued by the EC on August 5, 2025, asking for suspensions and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against these officials.

Call for Written Explanation

On Wednesday, the Election Commission requested the state chief secretary to ensure that a competent authority submits a written explanation regarding this "procedural lapse" by 5 PM on January 24. The explanation must elucidate the circumstances that led to the non-compliance with the Commission’s directives, which mandated disciplinary authorities to consult the EC before finalizing any matters arising from its recommendations.

Disciplinary Procedures Under Scrutiny

In its correspondence with the state chief secretary, the Commission emphasized that the finalized disciplinary proceedings were not conducted following the prescribed protocols. It stated that since the process was completed without mandatory consultation, the EC does not accept this finalization of disciplinary action and considers it procedurally irregular.

Documentation Required

The Election Commission has also instructed that the competent authority furnish complete disciplinary case records. This includes the articles of charge, written statements of defense, inquiry reports, findings, orders of the disciplinary authority, and any other relevant records regarding four officials: Tathagata Mondal, Debottam Dutta Choudhury, Biplab Sarkar, and Sudipta Das.

Serious Allegations Against Officials

The Commission had previously directed the state government to suspend the AEROs concerned and initiate appropriate disciplinary actions against them. Additionally, an FIR should be lodged against the officials, including a contractual data entry operator, under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Allegations suggest that these officials were improperly disposing of applications for inclusion in the electoral roll, failing to conduct necessary verifications, and not allowing the appropriate window for filing claims and objections.

Conclusion

The Election Commission’s firm stance highlights the importance of adhering to proper disciplinary procedures and maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. The state’s response to the EC’s request for an explanation will be closely monitored as it continues to address these serious allegations.