Calcutta High Court cautioned against routine preventive detention during West Bengal polls, stressing it must be exceptional. Bench of Arijit Banerjee and Partha Sarathi Sen upheld free, fair elections and personal liberty protections.
The Calcutta High Court stressed that election-related authorities must proceed with caution when considering preventive detention, observing that such action should be reserved for truly exceptional situations. The remarks were made in the second phase of polling in the West Bengal Assembly elections 2026 due the following day.
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen underscored that the electoral process must stay free, fair, and transparent, so that voters are able to cast their ballots without fear or coercion.
The Court noted,
“We are also sure that the competent authorities will not resort to preventive detention or arrest of persons excepting where the same is absolutely essential and that too, in accordance with 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,”
Factual Backgrounds:
The dispute arose from a petition challenging a memo issued by the Chief Electoral Officer on April 27, which proposed preventive action against individuals alleged to be involved in voter intimidation. The memo purportedly contained a list of multiple persons proposed for such action. The petitioner argued that the memo breached an earlier High Court order dated April 22, which had stayed a similar direction issued by the Election Commission that targeted alleged “troublemakers.”
During the proceedings, the ECI informed the Court that the contested memo had already been withdrawn. However, the Commission argued that its earlier steps were consistent with prior judicial directions and intended to maintain peace during the elections. Given the withdrawal, the High Court held that examining the case on merits was unnecessary, while still reiterating that every action by the Commission must remain unbiased free from both political bias and any other form of partiality.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay appeared for the petitioner along with a team of lawyers. The Election Commission was represented by Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury and his team, while the State was represented by Advocate General Kishore Datta, along with other counsel.
Observations of Court:
The Bench also expressed confidence in the Election Commission of India (ECI), reiterating its constitutional mandate to act without partiality.
It stated,
“Since it has become unnecessary for us to adjudicate the writ petition on merits, because of the same having become infructuous, we do not wish to pass any formal order on this writ petition. However, 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.”
Further reiterating the expectation, the Court added,
“We trust and believe that ECI and all its officers including observers appointed by it shall discharge their respective duties impartially without any bias.”
The court also said,
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.
The court disposed the Writ Petition.
Overall, the decision reflects an effort to maintain election security and law and order while simultaneously protecting individual liberties particularly the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Case Title: Md Danish Farooqui v Election Commission of India & Ors
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE