The Election Commission questioned the petitioner’s locus standi in the Calcutta High Court, arguing that a full-time state lawyer cannot file a PIL as a public-spirited person. The case challenges the transfer of IAS and IPS officers in West Bengal ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
The Calcutta High Court on Monday heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the reshuffle and transfer of IAS and IPS officers in West Bengal ordered by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.
The petition has been filed by advocate Arka Kumar Nag, and the matter was taken up for hearing where Advocate Kalyan appeared for the petitioner and argued against the large-scale transfer of officers in the state.
Advocate Kalyan submitted before the Court that the PIL challenges what he described as arbitrary action by the Election Commission of India in transferring several officers, including District Magistrates and senior police officials. He informed the Court about the number of officers transferred and questioned the basis on which such transfers were made.
He stated,
“In a nutshell, around 79 officers have been transferred.”
He further argued that the Election Commission’s stand was contradictory because on one hand it said that certain officers were connected to election duties, and on the other hand, the same officers were being deployed as observers in other places.
He argued that if the Election Commission needed officers for election work in different states, it could take officers from other states instead of focusing only on West Bengal. He said,
“With elections in 5 states, if the Election Commission of India requires officers, it can draw from the remaining states instead of targeting West Bengal.”
Advocate Kalyan also raised concerns about the extent of the Election Commission’s powers under Article 324 of the Constitution. He argued that while the Commission has the power to conduct elections, it does not have the authority to control the entire administration of a state by transferring key administrative and police officers. He argued that removing District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police would affect law and order and prosecution work in the state.
He submitted,
“If SPs and DMs are removed from their postings, who will handle prosecution and law & order? In case of any dispute, who will take charge?”
During the hearing, Advocate Kalyan also questioned the manner in which IAS officers from West Bengal were being treated and whether the transfers were being made without proper assessment. He raised a specific concern regarding the transfer of the Chief Secretary and questioned how such a transfer could be carried out.
He argued,
“How are IAS officers of West Bengal being treated? Is this just because the Election Commission of India is exercising unchecked power?”
He further argued,
“If even the Chief Secretary is transferred—when there is only one woman Chief Secretary in the country—where is she supposed to be posted?”
He added,
“While a DGP may be reassigned, a Chief Secretary cannot simply be shifted anywhere.”
He also questioned the speed and basis of the decision-making process behind the transfers and whether any objective assessment was carried out before issuing the transfer orders.
He argued,
“It must be based on objective assessment. Can such an assessment be made within a day? Or is it merely an exercise of power?”
He continued his arguments by questioning the removal of officers who had good service records and asked whether the transfers were being done to bring officers preferred by the Election Commission.
He argued,
“On what assessment has the ECI acted? Or is this about bringing in officers of its own choice?”
During the hearing, the Court asked for clarification regarding the number of officers transferred. The Court asked,
“You’re saying 63 police officers have been removed?”
Advocate Kalyan responded that this was correct.
The Court then asked,
“And how many civil officers?”
Advocate Kalyan replied that the number was 16. The Court further asked,
“These are IAS officers?”
Advocate Kalyan confirmed that they were IAS officers.
Advocate Kalyan then pointed out another alleged contradiction in the Election Commission’s decision. He argued that on one hand the Commission stated that certain officers would not be attached to the election process in West Bengal, but on the other hand, the same officers were being deputed to other states such as Tamil Nadu.
He said,
“On one hand, you say officers won’t be attached to the election process here, and on the other, you are deputing them to places like Tamil Nadu—how is this consistent?”
He also referred to an earlier notification issued by the Election Commission stating that no transfers would be carried out during the ongoing process, and questioned why transfers were suddenly ordered later. He questioned whether Article 324 gives the Election Commission the power to act arbitrarily and why no action had been taken earlier if there were concerns about certain officers.
He argued,
“During an ongoing process, you suddenly order transfers—how is this justified?”
He further argued,
“Does Article 324 empower the ECI to act arbitrarily? If there was dissatisfaction with any officer, why was no action taken earlier—why suddenly after 8–9 months?”
He continued by arguing that experienced officers were being removed from important administrative positions and questioned who would handle law and order if any situation arose. He also argued that the Chief Secretary and District Magistrates perform many administrative functions beyond elections and cannot be removed only for election purposes.
He argued,
“The Chief Secretary is not appointed only for elections—there are multiple administrative responsibilities. The same applies to District Magistrates. Why target only West Bengal? No such exercise has been carried out in other states.”
During the hearing, the Chief Justice cautioned Advocate Kalyan not to deviate from the main issue of the case.
The Court said,
“Please do not deviate from the issue.”
Advocate Kalyan responded to the Court and said,
“I am not deviating, My Lords.”
The Court then cautioned him to remain within the scope of the matter.
Senior Advocate Naidu also questioned whether the petition could be filed as a Public Interest Litigation at all. He argued that the petitioner is a full-time state lawyer and therefore cannot be considered a public-spirited person for the purpose of filing a PIL. He argued that the petition may not be maintainable as a PIL on this ground.
He also denied the allegation that the Election Commission had targeted only West Bengal. He argued that in previous Assembly elections in other states such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Jharkhand, a larger number of officers were transferred and therefore the claim of discrimination against West Bengal was not correct.
ALSO READ: Mamata Banerjee Demands Justice for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims, Slams Centre
Senior Advocate Naidu further argued that the transfers have not created any administrative vacuum in the state. He submitted that governance does not stop because of transfers, as officers may change but the official posts and administrative system continue to function normally. According to him, the administration continues to function as usual despite the transfers.
After hearing the arguments from all sides, the Calcutta High Court adjourned the hearing in the matter till Wednesday. The Court stated that the parties will continue their arguments and make further submissions on the next date of hearing. The case will continue to be heard on the issues of the Election Commission’s powers, the legality of the transfers, and the maintainability of the PIL.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Acharya Balkrishna
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
