আইপিএস বদলির সিদ্ধান্তে ক্ষুদ্ধ মমতা, চিঠি দিলেন জাতীয় নির্বাচন কমিশনকে

নির্বাচন কমিশনের চার আইপিএস বদলির সিদ্ধান্তে মুখ্যমন্ত্রীর তরফ থেকে একটি চিঠি পাঠানো হচ্ছে জাতীয় নির্বাচন কমিশনকে। এই চিঠির প্রথমেই নির্বাচন কমিশনের প্রতি শ্রদ্ধা, আস্থা ও বিশ্বাস জ্ঞাপন করেছেন মুখ্যমন্ত্রী মমতা বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়। কিন্তু তারপরই ৫ এপ্রিল শুক্রবার হঠাৎ করে নির্বাচন কমিশন ৪ আইপিএস অফিসারকে বদলি করে। এই ঘঠনাকে পক্ষপাতদুষ্ট, উদ্দেশ্যপ্রণোদিত, অগণতান্ত্রিক ও একতরফা বলেন মুখ্যমন্ত্রী। অবিলম্বে এই সিদ্ধান্ত পুনর্বিবেচনা করার দাবিও কমিশনকে লেখা চিঠিতে জানান মমতা বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়।

চিঠিটির বয়ান পাঠকদের সুবিধার্থে দেওয়া হলো-

At the outset, I convey my highest regards to the Election Commission of India. I strongly feel that the ECI plays a neutral role to save the democracy in India.But, it is very unfortunate that I have to write this letter today to raise strong protest against the transfer order dated 5th April, 2019 issued by the Election Commission of India by way of removing four senior officers from their existing positions.

The decision of the Commission is highly arbitrary, motivated and biased. We have every reason to believe that the decision of the Commission is at the behest of the ruling party at the centre, i.e. the BJP.

Few days back, it was in the press statements of BJP leaders making comments that senior officers of the state in the police administration would soon be replaced by the ECI.

Only yesterday, the Prime Minister and BJP contesting candidate in the coming Lok Sabha election, made a statement in a TV show that law and order situation is bad in Bengal and that is why 7-phase election has been ordered.

Just soon thereafter the order of the Commission on removal of officers was received.

This flow of events gives rise to strong doubts whether the Commission is functioning as per its Constitutional mandate of conducting free and fair elections or working in a manner to appease the ruling BJP at the Centre.

Kolkata, Bidhannagar are highly cosmopolitan areas inhabited by people of different caste, creed and communities. The  present officers  who are brightand experienced in the area have been playing key roles in seizure of illegal currency, gold, liquor and other prohibited items and enforcing law and order in strict manner resulting in large number of arrests. The decision of the ECI to remove these officers leaves a big question mark whether this step is to give a shield to the vested interested parties and their political masters.

Two officers named by ECI as Commissioners were given the duty of Police Observers in other States. These officers do not have adequate knowledge of the area and the people. Putting them in charge of these crucial areas can significantly jeopardise managing these areas effectively. Should there be any deterioration in the law order situation of the state, would the Commission take responsibility?

Law and order is a state subject. Yet, no consultation has been made with the state government. The practice of seeking a panel of names of officers has not been followed. Such a step could have given the State Government an opportunity to send a panel of officers who have desired experience over the area that could have helped them to discharge their functions effectively. By not following the established practice and not seeking a panel of officers from the State Government, the action of the ECI is prima facie undemocratic, biased and suffers from principles of natural justice.

I would, therefore, urge the Commission to review its decision and would also request the Commission to cause an inquiry as to how and under whose guidance, the decision of transfers of the officers has been taken.