The BJD on Monday lodged a complaint with the Election Commission (EC), alleging that certain leaders and candidates of Odisha BJP are exploiting the poll panel's name and intimidating state government officials on election duty with transfers if they do not support saffron party nominees in the polls.
Six IPS and two IAS officers from Odisha were recently transferred by the EC. According to Sasmit Patra, BJD's general secretary and national spokesperson, Odisha BJP candidates and leaders are leveraging these transfers as a means to threaten government officials involved in election duties.
Patra claimed that BJP leaders are warning officials that their failure to support the Odisha BJP would result in their transfers through false complaints to the EC, a practice that violates the Model Code of Conduct and constitutes criminal behaviour by attempting to influence the election process.
"This conduct not only undermines our democratic process and the integrity of our electoral system but also tarnishes the reputation of the EC," Patra emphasised.
The BJD leader criticised such practices as detrimental to democracy and the electoral process. Moreover, he accused BJP leaders of misusing the EC's name for their political ends.
The BJD urged the Commission to take prompt action to ensure a free, fair, transparent, and healthy election in Odisha.
In a separate petition to Odisha's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), the BJD alleged that BJP leaders were employing underage children in election campaigning in Jatani assembly segment, Khurda district, despite the adverse weather conditions.
They provided photo and video evidence to support their claim and requested immediate action.
On the other hand, a delegation of Odisha BJP, led by former president Samir Mohanty, lodged complaints of poll code violations by a senior IPS officer working in the Chief Minister's Office (CMO).
Mohanty accused the IPS officer of partisan behaviour, making calls to IICs, SPs, and political leaders, which he deemed a violation of MCC.
The BJP demanded action against the officer, including the seizure of his mobile phone for examination of call details, with the results made public for transparency.