“Trust ECI To Carry Out Duties Impartially”: Calcutta High Court Disposes Plea Challenging Preventive Action Memo After EC's Withdrawal

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Arijit Banerjee and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen noted that the impugned memo dated April 27, 2026 had already been withdrawn by the Election Commission of India (ECI), rendering the matter substantially infructuous.However, while declining to examine the controversy on merits, the Court emphasised that the Election Commission and all officers appointed by it must function impartially and strictly in accordance with 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.”BackgroundThe PIL was filed by Md. Danish Farooqui challenging a Memo dated April 27, 2026 issued by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal to the Director General of Police.The memo referred to alleged instances of voter intimidation during the first phase of elections and directed police authorities to take immediate preventive measures against persons named in annexed lists, including registration of FIRs, issuance of notices under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), preventive detention where justified, increased patrolling and close monitoring.The petitioner sought quashing of the memo and restraint against coercive steps such as arrest or detention without institution of any specific criminal case and without following due process of law.Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the April 27 memo violated an earlier interim order passed by a coordinate Bench in a previous writ petition concerning a similar communication dated April 21, 2026.He contended that the memo reflected a partisan mindset and that police observers attached to the Election Commission could not act beyond the bounds of law.Reliance was also placed on a Supreme Court judgment cautioning that preventive detention is a “drastic measure” affecting personal liberty and must be strictly scrutinised.Advocate General Kishore Datta submitted that there had been a “complete substitution of the administration” by the ECI and argued that the Commission could not displace the State administration or exercise control over the police machinery in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional scheme.It was further contended that police and law and order are State subjects.Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, appearing for the ECI, informed the Court that the impugned memo had already been withdrawn by a subsequent communication issued on the same date.He denied any breach of the earlier court order and submitted that the Commission had acted strictly in conformity with judicial directions while responding to complaints of intimidation. Since the memo stood withdrawn, he urged that the writ petition had become infructuous.Accepting the submission, the Bench held:“Since the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is memo dated April 27, 2026… and since that impugned memo has been withdrawn by ECI by a subsequent memo dated April 27, 2026, we are of the view that nothing remains of this writ petition. The writ petition has become substantially infructuous.”The Court therefore refrained from adjudicating the matter on merits.At the same time, it underscored the need for free and peaceful elections scheduled for April 29.“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… 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.”The Bench also stressed that preventive detention or arrest should be used only when absolutely necessary and strictly according to law.“One must keep in mind the paramount importance of a citizen's fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which can be curtailed only by following due process of law.”Case Title: Md. Danish Farooqui v. Election Commission of India & Ors.Case No.: WPA (P) 209 of 2026Click here to read order

“Trust ECI To Carry Out Duties Impartially”: Calcutta High Court Disposes Plea Challenging Preventive Action Memo After EC's Withdrawal

Srinjoy Das

Tags