On March 28, 2020, a CPM panel led by DYFI leader J S Shiju Khan was elected unopposed to the Executive Committee of Kerala State Child Welfare Council. Now, two-and-a-half years later, the High Court has set aside this election calling it "patently illegal."
It was found that the election process was done in such a stealthy fashion that even CPM members among the 2000-odd eligible voters of the council, suspected to be opposed to the Shiju Khan-led official CPM panel, were either kept in the dark or were informed of it cunningly late.
The High Court order on November 10 could not have been more timely as it has come at a time when a debate is raging around the CPM's alleged backdoor appointment of party favourites in local bodies.
Desperate mother, wily council
This blacklisted Executive Committee (EC) of the Child Welfare Council is a telling example of how such political appointees, foisted upon crucial government-controlled bodies, work overtime not for the group they are supposed to serve but for party leaders.
Remember Anupama, the young mother and a former SFI activist who fought a bold and relentless battle last year against the CPM to get her child back?
It was this Shiju Khan-led EC that went to the criminal extent of handing over her newborn to an unsuspecting family in Andhra Pradesh when it knew that the biological parents were desperately running around to secure custody of their child. Shiju Khan and team went to all this trouble because Anupama's father, a local CPM bigwig, did not approve of the child's father, a DYFI member like Shiju Khan.
Here is what the High Court said while setting aside the election of the Shiju Khan-led EC. "The administration of such an organisation should definitely be in the hands of the best among its members."
Field day for CPM's besties
Rather than in the best hands, the administration of the Child Welfare Council was placed on the sly in the hands of those who swear by the party and its leaders.
This was achieved by limiting the election process to just the loyalists of the official CPM leadership. The subversion, however, was done efficiently.
Most of the preparatory steps mandated in the bylaw of the Child Welfare Council -- the appointment of the returning officer, the issue of election notification and even the intimation of voters -- were taken. The deception was in the information flow and the timing.
Meticulous conspiracy
The council was formed for the welfare of orphaned, destitute and differently-abled children. It functions through the District Councils for Child Welfare and it generates funds through various methods, including sale of children’s day stamps and grants from the State and the Central Governments. The Governor of Kerala is the patron of the council, the Chief Minister its president and the minister of social justice its first vice-president.
The election of office-bearers and executive committee members is conducted by a returning officer (RO) appointed by the secretary of the Social Welfare Department. On December 16, 2019, the secretary appointed the director of women and child development as the RO; it was young IAS officer T V Anupama then.
On February 27, the RO issued the election notification declaring that the office-bearers and EC members will be elected on March 28, 2020.
So far so good. What's more, the RO also published the draft voters' list and claimed to have informed voting members about the details of the election. But it was in these two activities that the democratic process was undermined.
Restricted spread of information
Under the council's bylaw, the draft voters' list has to be published in the offices of the council and the district councils 30 days before the date of election; in this case, by February 27. The list was to be finalised five days later, on March 3, after verifying any complaints.
After this, the RO has to convey the details of the election, by post, to all the members, scattered across all the 14 districts, at least 21 days before the date of election; in this case, at least by March 7.
Both these requirements were satisfied, but in a convenient way. The first set of information -- notification and draft voters' list -- was made available on the said date but only to select voters. It was not sent to the District Council Offices, either 30 days before the date of election or even after.
Life members in districts, therefore, were left completely in the dark about the election. Only members in Thiruvananthapuram, where the council's headquarters is and all CPM men, were provided the details.
Benefits of procrastination
The second mandatory information – the intimation by post -- was sent to all but timed in such a way that it reached voters considered problematic by the CPM after the last date for filing nominations.
The letters should have reached voters at least by March 7, but many received the post only after March 11, the last date for filing nominations.
R S Sasikumar, the petitioner in this case and a former treasurer of the council, knew of the election only when he visited the council headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram on March 11. It was only then that he realised that the voters' list had also been finalised.
IAS officer's partial truths
Initially, Women and Child Development director T V Anupama, the designated RO, submitted before the court that the election notification was published in 14 District Council offices along with the draft voters' list.
This assertion prompted the court to call for the relevant files. And the files submitted in response had nothing to confirm the IAS officer's claims. The court then asked the government pleader for more clarity.
Anupama refused to produce any more documents saying she had been transferred out of the Women and Child Development Department and, therefore, had no access to the records. Then, she subtly rephrased her earlier submission. If earlier she said the voters' list was published, she now seemed to suggest that she was not sure though steps were definitely taken.
"I am sure that arrangements were made to publish the notification in the notice board of the office of the WCD Directorate, Kerala State Child Welfare Council and the 14 district offices of the council," she told the court, as if suggesting that if at all these were not published she could not be held responsible. Was she hinting at the role of powers above her?
If at all Anupama sought to convey a cryptic message, the High Court was least bothered. It just said it was "not satisfied with the evasive statement" in her affidavit. "She did not even attempt to ascertain the details sought by this court. As such, this court can only infer that the election notification and draft voters' list were not sent or published, in time, in the 14 district centres," Justice V G Arun said in his order.
The RO also sought to reinterpret the timing of posting the information letters. The accepted understanding was that the postal info should reach members at least 21 days before election, which is March 7. The RO reasoned that it needed to be seen only as the day the intimation letters were to be sent, not the day of receipt.
The court put the confusion to rest. "The requirement (under the bylaw) is not merely of sending the intimation 21 days in advance, but of ensuring that the election details are informed to the life members, prior to 21 days of the election," the court said.
Eventually, selective sharing of the voters' list and delayed letters of intimation led to council members being deprived of two cardinal rights: right to file objections and right to contest. That is why the High Court termed the election "patently illegal".
Anupama vs Anupama
Interestingly, an investigation conducted by Anupama IAS had found the Shiju Khan panel guilty of illegal haste in placing former SFI activist Anupama's child for adoption.
