Back
Overturns Protection for Candidate Milan Pradhan in Case
A division bench of the on set aside a single-bench order that had granted to Milan Pradhan, the candidate for the upcoming Nandigram bypoll. The bench, led by Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and comprising Justice Om Narayan Rai, ruled that . The court directed Pradhan to follow the regular legal process—either seek if he apprehends arrest, or apply for after arrest.
The decision overturns the relief granted on Thursday by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, who had directed the police not to take any steps against Pradhan in connection with a criminal case (Case No. 45 of at ) until . With the division bench’s order, Pradhan’s , imposed by the until , remains in effect. The Nandigram bypoll is scheduled for , with campaigning ending on , raising significant questions about Pradhan’s ability to campaign while in custody.
Background: A Candidate in Custody
Milan Pradhan was arrested on by the and subsequently shown arrested in connection with the case. On , the Contai court remanded him to until . Pradhan faces serious charges, including murder and attempt to murder, linked to the anti-land acquisition movement in Nandigram that erupted in . Several criminal cases were registered against him at Nandigram and Khejuri police stations that year.
Pradhan filed his nomination for the bypoll on , after former Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her faction announced support for his candidature. His lawyers argued that the timing of his arrest—just days after the political support was made public—was suspicious and intended to disrupt his election campaign. The High Court had earlier questioned the timing of action in cases nearly two decades old.
The Division Bench’s Stern Observations
Chief Justice Ghuge expressed surprise at the single-bench order, asking, “How can a single bench pass such an order? I am surprised to see this order.” The bench emphasized that in criminal law, there is no provision for the kind of interim protection granted. “An accused can apply for if he is apprehensive of arrest, or can seek bail after being held,” the Chief Justice observed. The bench made it clear that being an election candidate does not entitle a person to special treatment. “The law is the same for everyone, and there cannot be a different consideration for a person contesting an election,” the court noted.
Pradhan’s counsel, , argued that the circumstances had changed after the political support was announced, and that the protection was sought solely to enable his client to participate in the election. He submitted that there was insufficient time to obtain before the bypoll. The Chief Justice, however, remained firm: “You can contest the election, but not by avoiding the law.” He added that courts could hear urgent matters even during holidays, and that the legal process did not stop on Saturdays or Sundays.
Bail Hearing Before Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
Following the division bench’s order, Pradhan’s was heard by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on the same day. , appearing for Pradhan, sought until October 9, when the polling process would be over. He argued that the state had not placed the before the court to demonstrate his client’s role in the alleged offences, and that the cases dated back to with different political governments in power. “Why is the government so afraid of me contesting?” Mukherjee submitted.
opposed the plea, submitting that the cases involved allegations of murder and that had been issued against Pradhan. He argued that Pradhan could potentially influence witnesses and affect the investigation. The state relied on the ’s decision concerning former Delhi minister Tahir Hussain, submitting that a candidate could campaign through pamphlets rather than interacting with people while in custody.
Justice Ghosh questioned the state about the —how the matter had progressed from proclamation and attachment to a warrant of arrest. He also sought police records showing when authorities had actually started executing the orders after a division bench’s order in a related PIL. The court reserved its order, indicating it would be pronounced on .
Legal Implications: No Special Treatment for Election Candidates
The division bench’s ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that criminal law applies equally to all citizens, regardless of their political status or election candidacy. The court’s observation that there is no provision in criminal law for interim protection of the kind granted by the single bench is a significant clarification. It underscores the under , which is the only remedy for a person apprehending arrest, and under for those already in custody.
The case also highlights the tension between the right to contest elections and the enforcement of criminal law. While the has held that the right to vote and contest elections is a , it is not absolute and must yield to lawful arrest and detention. The ’s decision aligns with the view that a candidate in custody cannot claim special dispensation to campaign; the appropriate remedy is to seek bail.
Impact on Pradhan’s Campaign and the By-Poll
With Pradhan remaining in until at least , his ability to campaign in the Nandigram bypoll is severely hampered. The bypoll is a high-voltage contest, and the candidate’s absence from the campaign trail could affect his prospects. However, the court has not barred him from contesting; it has simply required him to follow the legal process for bail. If his is granted on , he may still have a few days to campaign before the deadline.
The case also raises questions about the timing of arrests in politically sensitive cases. The High Court had earlier questioned why action was being taken in cases nearly two decades old, just days after Pradhan’s candidature was announced. The division bench’s order, however, does not address that issue; it merely corrects the procedural error in granting interim protection without legal basis.
Conclusion: Awaiting the Bail Order
The legal drama surrounding Milan Pradhan’s candidature is far from over. While the division bench has set aside the interim protection, the remains pending. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh’s order, expected on , will determine whether Pradhan can be released on to participate in the election. The state’s opposition, based on the seriousness of the charges and the risk of witness influence, will weigh heavily.
For legal professionals, the case serves as a reminder of the strict procedural requirements in criminal law. The ’s emphatic rejection of any for election candidates reinforces the and the . As the bypoll date approaches, all eyes will be on the court’s next move.
