Former West Bengal State Election Commissioner Rajiva Sinha has made serious allegations about the functioning of the state administration during the violence-marred 2023 panchayat elections, claiming that instructions were reaching police stations “directly from Kolkata” while district magistrates, police superintendents and even the state’s top bureaucrats were unable to exercise their authority. Sinha, who supervised the rural polls when the Trinamool Congress was in power, said the normal administrative chain of command appeared to have been bypassed as the commission struggled to act on complaints of violence and electoral irregularities.
In an interview to News18 Bangla, Sinha recounted conversations he said he had with district officials while trying to act on complaints received by the State Election Commission. His account is significant because he was at the helm of the constitutional body responsible for conducting the panchayat elections and had earlier served as West Bengal chief secretary, besides holding several senior positions under the then TMC government.
‘Sir, orders are coming from Kolkata’
Sinha said that when complaints reached the commission, he would contact district magistrates seeking action, only to be told that the police were not following their directions. When he contacted the superintendent of police concerned, Sinha alleged, the explanation was that instructions were bypassing the district hierarchy altogether.
“If I called the district magistrate after receiving a complaint, he would say the SP was not listening. If I called the SP, he would say, ‘Sir, orders are coming directly from Kolkata to the police station’,” Sinha said. Asked who was issuing those orders, the former poll chief said the response he received was simply: “Sir, you understand.”
Sinha did not identify any individual, government office or political authority as the source of the purported instructions, nor did he specify what those directions allegedly required police stations to do. His central allegation, however, was that during a critical election conducted amid widespread complaints of violence, instructions were reaching the police outside the established administrative chain.
‘Top officials had hands tied’
Sinha went further, claiming that the inability to act extended to the highest levels of the state administration. “The chief secretary, home secretary and DG had their hands tied,” he said, recalling that he remained in regular communication with senior officials during the election but found that their formal authority did not necessarily translate into action on the ground.
“They had all the powers but could not use them,” Sinha said. His remarks raise questions over who, if his account is correct, was exercising effective operational authority over the police when the State Election Commission and senior administrative officers sought intervention during the polls.
The 2023 panchayat elections were accompanied by allegations of violence and irregularities during nominations, polling and counting, with opposition parties repeatedly accusing the then ruling TMC and state administration of interfering with the electoral process. The TMC had rejected allegations that electoral malpractice was systematic or directed by the party.
‘I heard 200 cases, could do nothing’
Sinha also described what he said was the commission’s inability to provide effective relief even after complaints reached it. Following directions from the Calcutta High Court, he said, he personally heard at least 200 cases concerning the elections but frequently found himself unable to take the matter further.
“I heard at least 200 cases on the direction of the High Court. I felt bad listening to the complainants, but there was nothing I could do,” he said. According to Sinha, reports submitted by district magistrates and superintendents of police would frequently give the administration a clean chit despite the allegations placed before the commission.
He also alleged that CCTV footage sought by the commission in connection with some complaints was sometimes reported as unavailable. Sinha said he would respond by asking officials to register a case over the missing equipment or footage, telling them: “File an FIR saying that the camera has gone missing.”
His remarks come more than three years after an election in which the deployment of central forces and the State Election Commission’s handling of security repeatedly reached the Calcutta High Court and Supreme Court. They also reopen questions about the extent of administrative independence during the rural polls, although Sinha has not produced evidence publicly identifying who allegedly issued the instructions from Kolkata.
TMC questions Sinha’s silence
The Mamata Banerjee faction of the TMC hit back sharply, questioning why Sinha had not spoken publicly about the alleged interference while he was State Election Commissioner. Party leader Kunal Ghosh also targeted retired IAS officer Debashis Sen, who has separately spoken about his experience of the administration during the previous TMC regime.
“Was he sucking his thumb then?” Ghosh said while questioning Sinha’s silence when he occupied senior positions. “You saw everything through your eyes then. Why did Rajiva Sinha and Debashis Sen not say these things? Are they trying to be on the good books of the new BJP government by making these allegations now?”
Ghosh also sought to link the timing of the claims to the controversy surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, questioning whether former bureaucrats were being encouraged to speak out at a time when the Election Commission itself was facing scrutiny. Sinha’s allegations, however, relate specifically to the 2023 panchayat polls conducted by the West Bengal State Election Commission.
Poll authorities under scrutiny
The remarks have surfaced amid a separate controversy over reported disagreements within the three-member Election Commission of India over decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on multiple occasions over a 10-month period concerning aspects of the exercise.
The Election Commission has rejected suggestions of a split within the poll panel, maintaining that final decisions concerning the SIR were unanimous and that observations and differences expressed during internal deliberations were part of normal institutional functioning. Sinha’s account is separate from that dispute, but his decision to speak publicly has added another dimension to the wider debate over the independence and functioning of election authorities.