CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court on Friday directed the superintendent of police (SP), Berhampur, to submit an explanation regarding his alleged public remarks on an ongoing election petition pending before the court.
The direction came from the single judge bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra while hearing an election petition filed by a voter Manoj Kumar Panda, challenging the election of BJP MLA K Anil Kumar from the Berhampur Assembly constituency. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an affidavit alleging that he was forcibly detained and interrogated by police about the election petition.
According to the affidavit, on October 22, while returning from the railway station to his house, three police personnel without uniform forcibly picked him up in a police vehicle and took him to police barracks where they detained him till October 24 and interrogated him about the election petition, particularly asking him why he had filed the plea against the sitting MLA.
The court directed that the affidavit be kept on record and ordered that copies of it and the day’s order be served upon additional government advocate AR Dash to obtain necessary instructions and apprise it accordingly.
During the hearing, attention was also drawn to a news report enclosed to an interlocutory application. The report related to an ongoing murder investigation and cited remarks allegedly made by the Berhampur SP at a press conference.
Quoting the press statement, the court recorded, “During the investigation, an election petition emerged as a common link between Bikram Panda and Siba Shankar Dash. The petition was filed on May 19, 2024, against sitting BJP MLA K Anil Kumar of Berhampur. It was filed in the name of a helper who works at Siba Shankar Dash’s residence. In reality, it was filed by Siba Shankar Dash himself. The legal expense and advocate fees for pursuing the election petition were being borne by Bikram Panda, the S.P said.”
Justice Mishra observed, if the report was true, it is indeed disturbing that a police officer as senior as the SP chose to publicly comment on an ongoing election dispute before this court.
Consequently, the bench directed the SP to submit an explanation on the circumstances and the reason behind his statement, especially referring to the election petition being heard by the court and also why such conduct should not be treated as contempt. The SP has been asked to submit his explanation on or before November 7.
