Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court has sided with the Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and the Mugberia Central Cooperative Bank, directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) not to requisition them for parliamentary elections. The court emphasized that cooperative banks, not established by statute, are not subject to ECI’s blanket powers, highlighting the importance of legal interpretation in safeguarding institutional autonomy.

Arguments:

The petitioners contended that their banks, registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, did not fall within the ambit of Section 159 of the Representation of People Act (RP Act) or receive significant government funding. They argued against the ECI’s reliance on Article 324 of the Constitution, stressing the need to consider Section 159 alongside.

Counsel for the ECI countered, asserting its authority under Article 324 and deeming the petitioners as public servants under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The ECI maintained that prior requisition under Section 159 preceded the appointment under Section 26 of the RP Act.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya underscored the need for a nuanced interpretation, rejecting the ECI’s blanket authority. He emphasized that Article 324 must be read in conjunction with Section 159 of the RP Act, limiting the ECI’s powers. Consequently, the court set aside the ECI’s requisition order, affirming the cooperative banks’s autonmoy.