Back
Hits Brakes on 's Total Bike Blackout for Polls
In a timely ruling ahead of West Bengal's assembly elections, the has partially lifted restrictions on motorcycle use imposed by electoral authorities. Justice Krishna Rao modified the 's orders, deeming a on bike riding unjustified while upholding curbs on rallies and pillion riding to prevent violence. The verdict in ensures voters' mobility isn't sacrificed at the altar of poll security.
From Rally Routes to Road Blocks: The Spark of the Dispute
Ritankar Das, a petitioner challenging the orders, approached the High Court after the issued directives on . These barred motorbike rallies from polling day-2 (P-2), restricted riding from 6 PM to 6 AM, banned pillion riding during daytime except emergencies, and allowed limited family pillions only on polling day—with permissions needed for exceptions.
A day later, on , exemptions were granted to ride-hailing (Ola/Uber) and delivery services (Zomato/Swiggy), plus office-goers with ID. Das argued these still overreached, infringing without statutory backing. Polls were set for , amplifying urgency amid deployed paramilitary forces and police for security.
Petitioner's Rev: 'No Law Allows This Throttle on Rights'
for Das contended the orders lacked authority under any law, invoking the principle that actions must follow prescribed manners. Citing Bhagyoday Janparishad vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2013 Guj 2014), he stressed 's wide powers demand "." R. Rajangam vs. Union Territory of Puducherry (AIR OnLine 2021 Mad 265) reinforced no blanket vehicle prohibitions.
Even the state concurred no statutory conformity existed, warning against bad-faith misuse of power per .
's Gear Shift: Defending Fair Play Over Freewheeling
The Election Commission, via , justified curbs based on past violence where bikes ferried musclemen to intimidate voters. grants for unforeseen scenarios, as in Mohindr Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (1978 1 SCC 405), allowing the Commission to fill "vacuous areas" for free, fair polls.
, ban public meetings and canvassing near polls. SOP for last 72 hours mandates vehicle checks via NAKAs (nakas). vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1995 Supp (3) SCC 379) affirmed 's . No intent for total traffic halts, just anti-mischief vigilance.
Court's Verdict: Red Lights for Blankets, Green for Targeted Checks
Dismissing maintainability challenges under , Justice Rao held the writ targeted an administrative order, not the election process itself. While Article 324 empowers , it bows to statutes like the RP Act and SOPs—which lack bike-riding bans but specify vehicle scrutiny.
"In the name of free and fair poll, the authorities cannot pass a blanket restriction on the motor cycle riding,"
the court observed, noting rallies warrant curbs but general riding 48 hours prior does not, especially with robust security in place.
Relying on , powers under Article 324 are hemmed by laws under .
Key Observations from the Bench
"The will have to conform to the existing laws and rules in exercising its powers and performing its manifold duties for the conduct of ."
"This Court failed to appreciate why the respondent no. 3 has imposed restriction upon the riding of the motorcycle polling day-2 onwards."
" is thus couched in wide terms. Power... is to be exercised ."
Modified Lanes Ahead: What the Ruling Means
The court rewrote the orders:
- P-2 onwards : No motorbike rallies.
- 12 hours pre-polling : No pillion riding except medical/family emergencies, school runs.
- Polling day : Family pillions 6 AM-6 PM for voting/essentials.
- Exemptions for services/office-goers retained.
As external reports note, this balances 's violence-prevention goals—upholding rally bans—with citizens' rights, signaling courts won't rubber-stamp overbroad curbs. Future polls may see more precise, SOP-aligned measures, easing public harassment while guarding democratic integrity.
