WB Polls: Calcutta High Court Quashes Requisition Of School's Buses For Election DutyCase Title: South Point Education Society & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 196The Calcutta High Court has quashed the requisition of eight school buses belonging to South Point, for West Bengal Assembly election duty, holding that the police and transport...
WB Polls: Calcutta High Court Quashes Requisition Of School's Buses For Election Duty
Case Title: South Point Education Society & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 196
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the requisition of eight school buses belonging to South Point, for West Bengal Assembly election duty, holding that the police and transport authorities acted without jurisdiction and failed to show any prior approval from the competent election authorities.
Justice Krishna Rao observed that although Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, empowers the government to requisition vehicles for elections, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or without following due process of law.
Case: Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal Vs. Ritankar Das & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 197
The Calcutta High Court has modified a single bench order, which removed all restrictions imposed by the Election Commission of India on bike riding, bike rallies and pillion riding ahead of the second phase of the West Bengal polls to be held on 29th April.
Challenging the order, the ECI approached a division bench consisting of Justices Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta.
The Bench observed that after hearing submissions on the need to ensure security and peaceful polling during the second phase, the earlier order required limited modification in the larger interest of free and fair elections.
Case: Muddassir Ahmed Siddique Vs. The Election Commission of India & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 198
The Calcutta High Court has requested the SIR Appellate Tribunal to consider and dispose of a bunch of appeals filed by voters whose names were allegedly deleted from the electoral roll, observing that an early decision would enable the petitioner to exercise his franchise in the upcoming poll scheduled for April 29, 2026.
Justice Krishna Rao was hearing writ petitions filed by individuals who complained that although his name initially appeared in the voter list, it was subsequently removed.
Case Title: Rahul Verma v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 199
The Calcutta High Court has refused anticipatory bail to an accused in a massive cyber fraud case allegedly involving fake investment schemes, digital arrest scams and proceeds of crime running into thousands of crores, observing that he was “practically caught red-handed while perpetrating the alleged fraud.”
Justice Jay Sengupta held that the petitioner could not claim parity with members of the Ruia family, who had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench, since the allegations against him were qualitatively different.
Case Title: Md. Danish Farooqui v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 200
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday disposed of a public interest litigation challenging a memo issued by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, which had directed preventive action against persons allegedly involved in voter intimidation ahead of the Assembly elections.
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen noted that the impugned memo dated April 27, 2026 had already been withdrawn by the Election Commission of India (ECI), rendering the matter substantially infructuous.
Case Title: Sajal Maji v. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 201
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and 10-year sentence of a man found guilty of hurling a bomb at another person during Panchayat election campaigning in Birbhum, observing that any reasonable person throwing a bomb at someone must be presumed to know that such an act is likely to cause death.
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed the appeal filed by Sajal Maji against his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9B(2) of the Indian Explosives Act.
Case Title: Sudip Kumar Pal v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 202
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable for repeatedly overstaying leave and remaining absent without authorization, observing that a disciplined force cannot tolerate members who “drop in and absent” themselves at will.
Justice Amrita Sinha dismissed the writ petition filed by Sudip Kumar Pal challenging his dismissal from service and the appellate order affirming it.
Case: All India Trinamool Congress Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 203
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) challenging the exclusion of State government or state PSU employees from being appointed as counting supervisors or counting assistants for the ongoing West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026.
"It is the prerogative of the office of the Election Commission of India to appoint the counting supervisor and counting assistant either from the State Government or the Central Government. This Court does not find any illegality for appointing counting supervisor and counting assistant from the Central Government/Central PSU employee instead of State Government employee," the Court stated.
Case: Saw Herald vs The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 204
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, holding that mere driving of a vehicle from which contraband is recovered, without any recovery from the accused or prima facie material showing control over the seized substance, does not amount to “possession” so as to attract the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya sitting at the Port Blair circuit bench observed that although the concept of possession under the Act is not confined to physical recovery from the person of the accused, there must at least be prima facie material indicating that the accused had control over the contraband, and merely driving a car from which recovery is made from a passenger does not satisfy this requirement.
Case Title: Saw Timothy v. State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 205
The Calcutta High Court has cautioned the State authorities against delaying the release of accused persons despite the grant of bail, observing that such conduct undermines personal liberty.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Smita Das De was dealing with a habeas corpus plea alleging continued detention despite bail.
Recording a strong word of caution, the Court observed: : “On every occasion when an accused obtains bail, he/she should be immediately released and cannot be compelled to come to Court every time by filing Habeas Corpus petitions.”
Case: Augustine Ballava vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 206
The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) has granted bail to a 52-year-old cultivator accused of cultivating cannabis plants, holding that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to offences under Section 20(a) in the absence of any commercial quantity. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, while allowing the bail application, observed that the statutory rigours imposing a reverse burden and stricter standards for bail would not apply in such cases.