“No Step-Motherly Treatment”: Calcutta High Court Upholds ECI Mass Transfers, Finds No Public Injury To Sustain PIL
Rejecting the claim of bias, the Court observed that similar or higher numbers of officers had been transferred across multiple States as part of a pan-India exercise.
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the large-scale transfer of IAS and police officers by the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the election period, dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the ground that no demonstrable public injury was made out. Observing that the Commission’s power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India was not in dispute, the Court declined to interfere, holding that such administrative measures cannot be subjected to judicial review in PIL jurisdiction in the absence of tangible harm to the public.
Rejecting allegations of bias against West Bengal, the Court observed that similar or higher numbers of officers had been transferred across multiple States as part of a pan-India exercise. It therefore found no merit in the contention that the State had been subjected to any selective or discriminatory treatment.
Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed, “…we find no reason to hold that while shifting/transferring officers of State of West Bengal, ECI did any step motherly treatment. The transfer is an incident of service. If transfer order runs contrary to any statutory provision, the aggrieved employee/officer can assail it in appropriate proceedings. In our view, the legality, validity and propriety of transfer orders which have not caused any public injury cannot be gone into in a public interest litigation”.
“In the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta (supra), only such injuries, which has an impact on public at large can form part of a PIL. In the case in hand, the petitioner could not make out any such case, which establishes with accuracy and precision that transfer order of officers will lead to any administrative collapse, deprivation to public from the fruits of beneficiary schemes…The petitioner made an effort to establish a political nexus between certain senior politicians and the respondent no.9. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the ECI, no such persons against whom allegations of connivance, pressure tactics etc. were alleged were impleaded by name. Thus, no allegation of malice can be entertained against the ECI. Apart from bald pleadings, no material could be placed to establish any such nexus”, it noted further.
Senior Advocates Dama Seshadri Naidu, Soumya Mazumdar appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay appeared for the respondent.
At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner himself had acknowledged the ECI’s authority under Article 324 of the Constitution to transfer officers to ensure free and fair elections. Rejecting attempts to challenge the very competence of the Commission, the Bench observed that the existence of such power was not in dispute and declined to undertake any roving enquiry into the issue.
On the argument that the attempt of ECI is to ‘Numb’ the Government for the benefit of the present dispensation in the Central Government, the Bench noted, “…Upon examining the rival stands, we do not find much substance in the said contention. No doubt, bureaucracy plays a vital role in implementing the policies and decisions taken by ministers and Government and in their absence, the policies cannot be translated into reality, in the instant case, in place of transferred officers other officers have joined… it is seen that when one officer is transferred, another has occupied his position. Thus, as such there is no vacuum created in the system or in the administrative arena. The contention of Shri Naidu, learned senior counsel for the E.C.I. that in place of Chief Secretary and Home Secretary, officers who are 1 and 7 years senior to them respectively were posted, was not disputed by petitioner and the State. Thus, it cannot be said that administrative „numb‟ has been created and Government will paralyse if till election, this arrangement has been made to ensure free & fair elections.”.
A key pillar of the judgment was the doctrine governing PILs, where relying on the decision in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149, the Court reiterated that a PIL is maintainable only where a clear case of public injury is demonstrated. It emphasised that individual service grievances cannot be agitated in the guise of public interest litigation and that courts will not entertain fishing or roving enquiries in the absence of concrete material.
“In the instant case, it is clear like noon day that petitioner has raised eyebrows because sizable number of officers were transferred by ECI. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, where existence of power of ECI to transfer/shift officers is admitted, we are not inclined to conduct any roving enquiry and analysis to examine whether the E.C.I. otherwise had any such power or not. This is equally settled that the petitioner must independently plead and establish its own case. It cannot solely take benefit of opposite side’s weakness/strength. Thus, merely because State is supporting the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be permitted to travel beyond the scope of the pleadings. Thus, the supporting stand of State Government will not improve the case of the petitioner. Similarly, State a respondent in the matter cannot enter into the shoes of petitioner”, it noted.
While dismissing the PIL as devoid of substance, the Court clarified that individual officers aggrieved by transfer orders are at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Arka Kumar Nag v. Election Commission of India and others WPA (P) 141 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioner: Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Rahul Kumar Singh, Shrobana Sengupta, Kaushik Bandyopadhyay, Advocates.
Respondents: Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Soumya Mazumdar, Sr. Adv., Anamika Pandey Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Surjaneel Das, Kumar Utsav, Ghanshyam Pandey, Kishore Datta, AG, Swapan Banerjee, Sumita Shaw, Diptendu Narayan Banerjee, Soumen Chatterjee, Advocates.