The Calcutta High Court has noted that it is in the interest of all citizens that the Bengal elections are conducted in a fair, transparent, and peaceful manner, ensuring every member of the electorate can exercise their franchise freely and without fear. While acknowledging the necessity of maintaining order, the Court held that constitutional authorities and their observers must discharge their duties impartially and without political bias, ensuring that the fundamental right to personal liberty is only curtailed through the strict application of due process.

This judicial observation followed the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to withdraw a contentious administrative memorandum that had directed police to take preventive actions against a listed group of alleged "trouble-mongers". By retracting the directive during the proceedings, the ECI rendered the specific legal challenge substantially infructuous, leading the Court to dispose of the petition while reinforcing the principle that preventive arrest remains an exceptional measure of last resort.

Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed, “…because of the same having become infructuous, we do not wish to pass any formal order on this writ petition…It cannot be gainsaid that it is in the interest of all the citizens of this State that the election scheduled to be held tomorrow (April 29, 2026) is held in a fair, transparent and peaceful manner where each member of the electorate will be able to exercise his franchise freely without any fear”.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury and Kishore Datta, Advocate General appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, a Public Interest Litigation challenged a Memo dated April 27, 2026, issued by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal. Signed by a Police Observer, the Memo directed the Director General of Police to initiate preventive actions, including potential detention and the registration of FIRs, against individuals identified in a "Worry List".

The ECI justified these measures by citing hundreds of instances of voter intimidation and violent attacks on candidates during the first phase of the election.

In a pattern of similar directives; a previous Memo dated April 21, 2026, had already been stayed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court. That Bench had prima facie viewed the issuance of blanket directions treating citizens as trouble-makers as an error of law.

The petitioner argued that the subsequent April 27 Memo was a void attempt to bypass that judicial stay. However, the ECI’s counsel informed the Court that this second Memo had also been formally withdrawn, effectively ending the immediate controversy.

The Court noted that while police retain independent discretion to act against those committing actual penal offenses, they must not act as a total substitute for the state administration or bypass the rule of law.

“…we trust and believe that ECI which is a constitutional authority and all its officers including observers appointed by it shall discharge their respective duties in the election process fairly, efficiently, impartially without any bias, political or otherwise and strictly in accordance with law”, the Bench noted.

The Court disposed of the writ petition and expressed its trust that the ECI and its officers would act in accordance with the law to facilitate the election scheduled for April 29, 2026.

Cause Title: Md. Danish Farooqui v. Election Commission of India & Ors. W.P.A. (P) 209 of 2026

Appearances:

Petitioner: Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Adv, Rahul Kumar Singh, Niket Ojha, Ratikanta Pal, Deshma Ghosh, Advocates.

Respondents: Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv., Anamika Pandey, Sanskriti Agarwal, Arjun Kumar Kishore Datta, Advocate General, Lalit Mohan Mahata, Swapan Banerjee, A.G.P., Sumita Shaw, Diptendu Narayan Banerjee, Soumen Chatterjee, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Order



Tags: