Calcutta High Court Stays ECI Memo Branding 800 Persons As “Trouble-Makers”; Says It Cannot Issue “Blanket Direction” Beyond Statute

The Calcutta High Court has stayed a controversial communication issued from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, which allegedly identified around 800 persons as “trouble-makers” and called for action against them ahead of the Assembly elections, observing prima facie that the Election Commission cannot issue such “blanket direction” when election offences are already governed by statute.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen passed the interim order while hearing a petition challenging the memo dated April 21, 2026 issued by the Police Observer in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal.

The Court observed: “In our prima facie view the police observer in the office of Chief Election Officer, West Bengal has erred in issuing blanket direction by treating certain citizens as 'trouble-makers'.”

Accordingly, the Bench ordered: “As an interim measure, we deem it proper to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 21.04.2026... till the last day of June, 2026 or till further order whichever is earlier.”

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the impugned memo stated that persons named in an enclosed list were “actively involved in intimidating voters and creating disturbances in the electoral process.” It was submitted that the list contained names of nearly 800 persons, including elected representatives such as councillors, members of Panchayat bodies, MLAs and MPs.

The petitioner contended that the Election Commission had no authority to classify persons as “trouble-makers”, a term not recognised under any statute, and to direct police authorities to act against them through a generalised order.

It was further argued that offences relating to elections are specifically covered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, under which competent statutory authorities must independently exercise discretion.

Advocate General Kishore Datta for West Bengal supported the challenge and argued that “trouble-maker” is not a category known to penal law. It was submitted that preventive action affecting liberty can only be taken strictly in accordance with law and that criminal law cannot be set in motion by the Election Commission in a manner unknown to statute.

Senior Counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, sought time to file an affidavit and contended that the purpose of the memo was to ensure free, fair and peaceful elections. It was argued that no direction had been issued to act contrary to law and that similar instructions had been issued in other States in line with the Manual on Vulnerability Mapping, 2023.

ECI must follow the statutory measures as laid down

The Bench noted that an important constitutional question arose: “Whether in exercise of power under Article 324 of the Constitution, Election Commission can issue such general instruction like the present one impugned herein, when the offences relating to election are statutorily covered under B.N.S. and R.P. Act, 1951, etc.”

Referring to settled law, the Court reiterated: “If a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden.”

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI to emphasise that arrest is a matter of statutory discretion and not routine police action.

Further, the Bench observed: “When the election related offences are prescribed in B.N.S. and R.P. Act, 1951, the authorities entrusted therein alone are competent to take action as per their own discretion if any such offence is committed.”

Personal liberty can only be curtailed under law

It added that Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution make it clear that personal liberty can be curtailed only in accordance with a procedure established by law.

While staying the memo, the Court clarified that the order would not prevent police or civil authorities from proceeding against any person committing offences under the BNS, RP Act, 1951 or any other penal law.

The Bench said: “Even if the persons, whose names find place in Annexure-A... commit an offence, this interim order will not come in the way of the authorities to proceed against them in accordance with law as per their own independent discretion.”

The Court also directed that any exercise of “preventive detention/action” must be undertaken strictly in accordance with relevant detention laws.

The Election Commission has been granted four weeks to file its affidavit in opposition, with rejoinder thereafter.

The matter was listed after five weeks.

Case: Md Danish Farooqi v Election Commission of India

Case No: WPA(P) 162/2026

Click here to read order