By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The high-stakes elections in West Bengal have thrown up a controversy that cuts to the core of electoral integrity. At the centre is Ajay Pal Sharma, a special police observer appointed by the Election Commission of India (ECI), whose conduct has triggered a political and legal storm.
On the eve of the second phase of polling, a video surfaced showing Sharma allegedly issuing threats to family members of Jehangir Khan, a candidate of the Trinamool Congress from Falta in South 24 Parganas. The warning—widely perceived as coercive—quickly escalated into a political flashpoint.
Opposition parties reacted sharply. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of misusing observers for political ends, while the Trinamool Congress called the episode blatant intimidation. The subtext was unmistakable: Falta falls within the politically sensitive Diamond Harbour constituency, closely associated with Abhishek Banerjee, nephew of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.
Legal challenges followed swiftly, with petitions filed in the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court seeking Sharma’s removal. While the High Court declined urgent intervention during ongoing polls, the controversy has sparked a deeper institutional question: what exactly are the limits of an election observer’s authority?
According to the ECI’s Observer Handbook, observers are meant to be the “eyes and ears” of the Commission—not field commanders. Their role is to monitor, report, and recommend action through the established chain of command, typically via the Superintendent of Police. Direct enforcement, especially in a manner that suggests partisanship, falls outside their mandate.
Speaking to India Legal former Chief Election Commissioner TS Krishnamurthy said: “An election observer has the authority to observe and report to concerned authorities, including the district officer or the Central Election Commission. Observers must report on law and order issues and compliance with campaigning and voting rules. He can also ask for remedial action to ensure proper compliance.”
Yet Sharma’s conduct, critics argue, suggests an overreach that blurs this line.
AK Jain, former DGP of Uttar Pradesh, recounted his experience: “I was appointed as a police observer by the state government. Many times during elections, the state government appointed me to visit those districts and see that there was no trouble there. In that role, it was expected of us to strictly monitor everything there, to go and fully understand whether any lawlessness or intimidation was taking place.”
The controversy also intersects with Sharma’s own reputation. A 2011-batch IPS officer from Uttar Pradesh, he rose to prominence during high-profile crackdowns under the government of Yogi Adityanath, earning the label of an “encounter specialist”. His tenure included aggressive action against figures like Azam Khan, alongside allegations of excesses and a stint under investigation in a cash-for-postings case.
Critics argue that such a background raises questions about suitability for a role demanding neutrality and restraint.
The episode has also revived scrutiny of the broader system. The ECI had already undertaken an unprecedented administrative overhaul in West Bengal, transferring over 480 officials ahead of the polls—a move upheld by the Supreme Court. Yet, the process of selecting observers remains opaque, fuelling suspicions about political influence.
The roots of this tension go back to the 2002 Gujarat elections, when large-scale deployment of central observers became standard practice to counter perceived local bias. Over time, however, the system appears to have developed its own vulnerabilities.
The Supreme Court, in the landmark Prakash Singh vs Union of India judgment, warned of the dangers of politicised policing, noting that appointments driven by loyalty rather than merit erode institutional credibility. The current controversy seems to echo that concern.
A critical gap remains: while the Observer Handbook clearly defines duties, it offers little guidance on accountability when observers themselves face allegations. Introducing such mechanisms is complex—open to misuse, yet necessary for credibility.
Ultimately, the Ajay Pal Sharma episode underscores a larger institutional challenge. As the ECI grapples with accusations of bias, restoring trust will require not just procedural rigor, but visible neutrality. Observers must be chosen for professionalism—not political utility—and must operate firmly within the limits of their mandate.
The post When the Watcher Oversteps appeared first on India Legal.