The Court held that while the Election Commission has wide superintendence powers under Article 324(1), it must conform to existing laws and cannot impose restrictions without statutory backing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Calcutta High Court on Friday held that the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot impose a blanket restriction on motorcycle riding in West Bengal in the name of conducting free and fair elections. [Ritankar Das v. The State of West Bengal and Others]
Justice Krishna Rao modified a notification issued by the Chief Electoral Officer on April 20, which had prohibited motorcycle riding from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM two days before polling, as well as during the polling day itself.
“This Court failed to appreciate why the respondent no. 3 has imposed restriction upon the riding of the motorcycle polling day-2 onwards. In the name of free and fair poll, the authorities cannot pass a blanket restriction on the motor cycle riding,” the single Judge observed.
However, the Court upheld the prohibition on motorbike rallies, noting that such a restriction was justified to prevent violence in the run-up to polling. Accordingly, the Court modified the ECI’s order in the following terms:
(a) Polling day-2 onwards: No motor bike rally shall be allowed.
(b) 12 hours before the polling day, no pillion riding on the motor cycle shall be allowed except in the case of medical emergency/ family function or other essential requirements like dropping/picking of school children etc.
(c) Polling day: Family pillion riding on motor cycle shall be allowed from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. for voting purpose and for other essential requirement like medical emergency/ family functions etc.
(d) Exemption is given to the service providers such as Ola/Uber/Zomato/Swiggy and similar other home delivery agencies and also to the office going ridders with proper identification.
The petition was filed by Advocate Ritankar Das, who challenged the CEO’s notification on the ground that it was issued without statutory backing and amounted to an unreasonable curtailment of the fundamental right to livelihood. He contended that the restriction effectively prevented advocates like him, who relied on motorcycles as their primary mode of transport, from commuting to the High Court — particularly given that chamber work, client conferences and urgent filings often extended well beyond 8:00 PM.
Das submitted that the blanket prohibition bore no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and that the provision to seek written exemption from the local police station was impractical and arbitrary.
On April 21, the CEO had partially modified the notification to exempt service providers such as Ola, Uber, Zomato and Swiggy, along with office-going riders carrying valid identification. However, the core restriction on motorcycle riding remained untouched, prompting the petitioner to press his challenge.
ALSO READ: ED vs Mamata Banerjee| I-PAC Raids Row: Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing to Mar 18
Senior Advocate Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharyya, appearing for the petitioner, argued that when a statute prescribes a particular manner in which an act is to be done, all other methods stand forbidden. He relied on the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Bhagyoday Janparishad v. State of Gujarat to submit that while the ECI’s powers under Article 324(1) are wide, their exercise is not without check and must be accompanied by legal circumspection. He also placed reliance on R. Rajangam v. Union Territory of Puducherry to argue that a prohibition cannot take the form of a blanket ban on the movement of motorcycles.
Advocate General Kishore Datta, appearing for the State, submitted that the ECI’s order lacked conformity with any statutory provision. He argued that the superintendence powers under Article 324(1) are subject to laws made under Articles 327 and 328 of the Constitution, and that the respondent authorities had failed to explain the source of power under which the restrictions were imposed on the general public.
Senior Advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the ECI, relied on Sections 126 and 130 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — which prohibit public meetings during the 48-hour pre-poll window and canvassing in or near polling stations, respectively. He also placed reliance on Clause 5.5.5 of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the last 72 hours, which mandates checking of vehicles through NAKAS at the entry points of constituencies.
Naidu further relied on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commission of India v. State of Tamil Nadu to submit that the Commission possesses residuary powers to deal with situations not expressly provided for in enacted laws, and that the impugned order was necessary to prevent misuse of private vehicles by candidates, their agents and “anti-social elements with muscle power” to intimidate voters.
At the outset, the Court addressed the question of maintainability. It noted that the petitioner had not challenged the election process itself — a bar imposed by Article 329(b) of the Constitution — but had only challenged the jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication. Accordingly, the writ petition was held to be maintainable.
On merits, the Court accepted that the ECI enjoys wide superintendence powers under Article 324(1), but emphasised — relying on Mohinder Singh Gill — that such powers must be exercised in conformity with existing laws and rules. It noted that neither the Representation of the People Act, 1951 nor the SOP for the last 72 hours contained any provision empowering the authorities to impose restrictions on motorcycle riding.
The Court further observed that several paramilitary forces and local police personnel had already been deputed for the conduct of the polls, and that the SOP itself provided for vehicle-checking through NAKAS.
“There is no provision either in the SOP or in the Representation of the People Act for imposition of restriction in the motor cycle riding wherein on the other hand, there are specific provision under clause 5.5.5 regarding checking of vehicles and persons,” the Court noted.
While the Court accepted that there was “some justification” for banning motorbike rallies before the 48-hour window and on the day of polling — given the potential for violence — it held that riding a motorcycle, by itself, 48 hours prior to polling could not be subjected to a blanket ban.
With the above modifications, WPA 9958 of 2026 was disposed of. The accompanying CAN No. 1 of 2026 was dismissed.
The second phase of polling in West Bengal is scheduled for April 29.
Appearance
For Petitioner: Mr. Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Mandal, Adv., Mr. Soumya Dasgupta, Adv., Mr. Sattwik Majumder, Adv.
For State: Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. AG, Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ld. AGP, Ms. Sumita Shaw, Adv., Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Adv.
For Union of India: Mr. Ashok Kumar Chakraborti, Ld. ASGI, Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Adv., Mr. Guddu Singh, Adv.
For Election Commission of India: Mr. D.S. Naidu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv., Ms. Anamika Pandey, Adv., Ms. Sanskriti Agarwal, Adv., Ms. Rishika Pandey, Adv.
For Intervenor: Mr. Samim Ahammed, Adv., Mr. Arka Maiti, Adv., Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Adv., Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya, Adv., Md. Nasirul Haque, Adv., Ms. Reshma Khatun, Adv., Ms. Huma Shakil, Adv.
Case Title: WPA No. 9958 of 2026 – Ritankar Das Versus The State of West Bengal and Others
