Lagatar24 Desk
Dumka, Nov 5: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has taken strong exception to the lodging of as many as five cases against Godda BJP MP Nishikant Dubey in different police stations of Deoghar district for allegedly violating the model code of conduct (MCC) during the Madhupur bypoll and has sought an explanation from Deoghar deputy commissioner cum district election officer (DEO) Manjunath Bhajantri.
The chief electoral officer (CEO) of Jharkhand has been directed to seek an explanation from the Deoghar DC cum DEO on altogether eight points raised by the principal secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner vide his letter dated November 3, 2021 suggesting prima facia to be what it has been termed, the instance of ulterior motive and malafide exercise of power and abuse of process of law from his part.
Altogether five FIRs were lodged against the Godda MP at different police stations of Deoghar district on October 24 pertaining to the alleged violation of the MCC during the Madhupur bypoll which took place in April this year, by respective block development officers (BDO) on such verbal and written direction of the DC/DEO after over six months of the alleged crime which however was widely perceived to be politically motivated in the backdrop of the ongoing tug of war between Dubey and the chief minister Hemant Soren in particular and his government at large.
First and foremost the Election Commission (EC) has raised points against the abnormal delay of over six months in the filing of the FIR in this connection without any plausible explanation to it.
The delay as such, according to the aforesaid letter to the CEO Jharkhand, is against the statutory provisions which would blemish the purity and sanctity of free and fair bypoll.
While referring to the observations made by the Supreme Court in a previous high profile case the EC has further questioned the rationale of the DEO Deoghar behind lodging as many as five cases including one with Chitra police station of the district which otherwise does not fall under the Madhupur assembly constituency for the same instance of the violation of the MCC by Dubey and said it was against the established legal principles and subsequent judgement of the high courts and the apex court itself.
The EC has raised its eyebrow against the DEO also for simultaneously playing the role of the informant as well as the investigating officer in terms of having submitted earlier to the office of the CEO Jharkhand that the delay in filing of the FIRs was caused due to collecting evidence against Dubey although none of them could have been furnished except his initial Twitter post in which he had referred an incident which took place in Chitra being outside the constituency where the MCC was actually in force, being the only base of the lodging of the FIRs.
With regard to the verbal directions given by the DEO to the BDOs of two blocks including Devipur and Sarath for lodging the FIRs against Dubey, the EC has further cited courts’ observations mandating that official directions must be reduced in writing violation of which amount to ulterior motive.
Last but not least the EC has taken strong exception to the conduct of Deoghar DEO to submit a detailed report about the matter to the principal secretary, department of cabinet secretariats and vigilance which otherwise should have been forwarded to the EC only for the matter pertaining to the election and that no prior permission was sought for lodging of the FIR from it.
Notably, the incumbent Deoghar DC was debarred from the affairs of the Madhupur bypoll by the EC amidst the election process for his alleged partiality in the favour of the candidate of the ruling alliance.
The Deoghar deputy commissioner meanwhile could not be contacted for his reaction over the EC’s explanation sought from him.
