Back
Milan Pradhan Gets Three-Week from to Contest Nandigram Bypoll
In a significant pre-election relief, the on Tuesday granted three-week to Milan Pradhan, the Congress candidate for the high-stakes Nandigram Assembly bypoll. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh’s order allows Pradhan to campaign freely ahead of the vote, despite his arrest on in connection with six criminal cases dating back to the Nandigram anti-land acquisition agitation. The court stressed that Pradhan was taken into custody only after filing his nomination papers and that the State failed to show he was wanted for any offence after . The bail runs until , with strict conditions including daily phone calls to the investigating officer.
A Political Activist's Last-Minute Bail
The bypoll for the Nandigram seat, vacated by Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari who chose to retain Bhabanipur, has become a political flashpoint. Pradhan’s arrest hours after leader Mamata Banerjee announced her party’s support for his candidature raised immediate questions of timing. The cases against Pradhan involve charges of murder, attempt to murder, and violations of the , all stemming from the violent anti-land acquisition protests in Nandigram in , which had also triggered a CBI investigation.
When him to until , his ability to campaign—ending on —seemed extinguished. However, Justice Ghosh, hearing his plea, took a different view. The judge noted that Pradhan was not in custody when he filed his nomination and that the police had nearly 19 years to execute warrants but chose to act only after his candidacy was announced. “In none of the cases relied upon by the State had a person been arrested after filing nomination papers,” the court observed.
Court Rests on Timing and Age of Cases
The court’s reasoning centered on two key factors: the timing of the arrest and the vintage of the allegations. Justice Ghosh pointed out that the entire incident forming the basis of the cases had already been investigated by the , and the State produced no material to suggest Pradhan was wanted for any offence after . The judge remarked that the police had “more than sufficient time” to execute warrants in cases that are nearly two decades old.
Critically, the court also took a “” of the circumstances, relying on the ’s judgment in . In that precedent, the apex court had held that an accused should not be prevented from contesting elections merely because of pending criminal cases, unless there is a compelling reason. The found that reasoning applicable here, noting that Pradhan is a political activist who participated in the agitation and continues to be a political worker.
Conditions for Campaigning
While granting relief, Justice Ghosh imposed specific conditions to balance the State’s concerns about witness influence. Pradhan was directed to deposit his mobile phone number with the police station and make himself available for two daily phone calls from the investigating officer—between 10.30 am and 11.30 am, and again between 8.30 pm and 9.30 pm. He must also before the on , after the bypoll and counting (scheduled for ) are over. Additionally, he was required to furnish two of ₹10,000 each in all six cases.
The court’s conditions ensure that Pradhan can campaign physically but remains under remote surveillance. The State had opposed bail, arguing that the cases involved murder allegations and that he could influence witnesses. However, Pradhan’s counsel, , countered that the State had not placed any material showing his client’s role in the alleged offences, and highlighted that the court had previously granted similar interim relief to other political candidates, including Rakesh Singh and Arvind Kejriwal.
The and Its Limits
The reliance on the ’s is a notable aspect of this order. In that case, the apex court had granted to Kejriwal in the excise policy case, allowing him to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections. The applied the same principle: that the right to contest elections is a fundamental aspect of democratic participation, and that preventing a candidate from campaigning merely because of pending cases—especially when those cases are old and the arrest is timed after nomination—would be disproportionate.
However, the court was careful to note that this is an interim, time-bound relief and does not reflect on the merits of the cases. The bail is specifically to enable Pradhan to exercise his democratic right to campaign, and he must return to custody on unless further orders are passed. This distinction is important for legal professionals: it underscores that is not a free pass but a carefully calibrated remedy tied to the electoral calendar.
Broader Implications for Political Candidates
This judgment adds to a growing body of case law where courts intervene to ensure a for candidates in elections. The key takeaway is that the timing of an arrest relative to nomination and election dates can be a decisive factor. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing whether arrests are made in a manner that appears to target a candidate’s electoral prospects, especially when the cases are old and the police had ample opportunity to act earlier.
For legal practitioners, the case highlights the importance of highlighting the age of cases, the absence of fresh material, and the timing of arrest when seeking for election campaigns. The ’s reliance on the also signals that the ’s approach in that case is not limited to high-profile politicians but can be invoked by any candidate facing similar circumstances.
The State’s argument that a candidate cannot seek relief merely on the pretext of participating in an election was rejected because the court found that Pradhan was not a fugitive and had been arrested only after he became a candidate. The division bench had earlier set aside a single-bench order granting him protection, but the bail court independently assessed the facts and granted interim relief.
Conclusion
Milan Pradhan now has a narrow window to campaign for the Nandigram bypoll, with the election on and counting on . The ’s order is a pragmatic application of constitutional principles to electoral realities, balancing the seriousness of the allegations with the to participate in the democratic process. For now, Pradhan is free to canvass, but he must remain in touch with the police and as directed. The ultimate fate of the cases remains to be decided by the trial court, but this interim relief has already altered the political dynamics of a key bypoll in West Bengal.
