Calcutta High Court stayed Election Commission of India directions tagging 800 individuals as troublemakers before polls. Bench led by Sujoy Paul found prima facie error in issuing blanket orders against citizens.
The Calcutta High Court stayed the operation of directions issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI), which had identified nearly 800 individuals as “troublemakers” and sought preventive action or detention against them ahead of the Assembly elections in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu.
The interim relief was granted by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, just a day before polling was scheduled, reflecting the urgency and sensitivity of the matter.
Factual Backgrounds:
The controversy arose in the backdrop of heightened election preparedness, where the ECI had circulated a memo through the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, flagging certain individuals as potential disruptors of the electoral process.
The list allegedly included a wide range of persons, including elected representatives such as councilors, panchayat members, MLAs, and MPs. According to the Commission, these individuals were “actively involved in intimidating voters and creating disturbances in the electoral process,” prompting recommendations for preventive measures. Challenging this action, a petition was filed through advocates Md Danish Farooqui and Ratikanta Pal.
Arguments of Parties
Senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the ECI had exceeded its authority by issuing what amounted to a sweeping and unsubstantiated directive. He contended that election-related offences are already governed by statutory frameworks such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that any preventive or punitive action must be taken by competent authorities in accordance with these laws, based on specific facts and independent application of mind.
The State of West Bengal, represented by Advocate General Kishore Datta, supported this position, submitting that the term “troublemaker” has no legal recognition under existing penal statutes. He argued that branding individuals in such a manner, without any established offence, was legally untenable and could not form the basis for preventive detention or coercive action.
High Court’s Observation:
Taking note of these submissions, the High Court expressed serious reservations about the legality of the ECI’s directive. It observed that, prima facie, the Commission could not issue such a “blanket direction” when election-related misconduct is already addressed under established statutory provisions.
The bench further held that preventive detention or similar action cannot be ordered in the absence of a cognizable offence, emphasizing that such powers must be exercised strictly within the confines of law.
The Court also highlighted the potentially harmful consequences of the ECI’s action, noting that the list appeared to be “stigmatic” in nature, as it labelled individuals without due process and could adversely impact their rights, including the right to vote.
In this context, the bench remarked,
“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’.”
On behalf of the ECI, senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu sought time to file a detailed affidavit in response to the allegations. Pending further consideration, the Court directed that any exercise of preventive action or detention must strictly adhere to the relevant statutory provisions governing such measures. It also stayed the operation of the impugned directive “till the last day of June”, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
The ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties during the electoral process while balancing the need for maintaining law and order. It also reiterates that even in the context of elections, authorities must act within the bounds of law and cannot resort to broad or undefined classifications that may infringe upon fundamental rights.