Back
Calcutta HC Hits Brakes on ECI's 'Trouble-Maker' Dragnet: Blanket Orders Can't Trump Liberty Laws
In a swift move ahead of West Bengal's Assembly polls on , the stayed a controversial memo from the Chief Electoral Officer's office branding around 800 individuals—many elected representatives like MLAs, MPs, councillors, and panchayat members—as " " accused of voter intimidation. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen ruled that the overstepped under , as election offences are already covered by statutes like the , , and .
The interim order, passed on , in Md. Danish Farooqui v. Election Commission of India & Ors. (WPA(P) 192/2026), halts the April 21 memo's operation till , or further orders, safeguarding personal liberty while allowing police independent action against actual offences.
Voter Intimidation List Ignites PIL Firestorm
The flashpoint was a police observer's memo (No. 5607-Home (Elec.) dated
), enclosing a list of nearly 800 names flagged for
"actively involved in intimidating voters and creating disturbances."
Petitioner Md. Danish Farooqui, via
, challenged it as a "secret" roster allegedly targeting Trinamool Congress (TMC) affiliates, with no specific FIRs or evidence disclosed—echoing claims from TMC MP Rajeev Kumar that 500 arrests had already occurred on verbal orders, flouting
safeguards.
Filed as a public interest writ amid imminent polling, the petition highlighted the list's sweep, including elected officials, arguing it bypassed due process for election-related crimes outlined in , BNSS sections like 35, and .
Petitioner's Liberty Shield vs. ECI's Poll Peace Arsenal
Petitioner's Volley : Bandyopadhyay invoked Article 21's guarantee against liberty deprivation sans " ," stressing police discretion in arrests ( Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 162). He slammed "trouble-maker" as an ECI-coined term alien to law, rendering the blanket directive "malicious" and beyond , which yields to statutes ( Express Newspapers v. UoI , 1986 (1) SCC 133).
West Bengal's piled on, aligning with and constitutional lists, citing Kanhiyalal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi (1985 (4) SCC 628) to argue ECI's superintendence is subordinate to RP Act procedures—no room for generalized hit-lists.
ECI's Counterpunch : defended the memo as a nudge for "free, fair, peaceful elections," per the 2023 Manual on Vulnerability Mapping, not overriding law. Similar directives issued elsewhere; police respondents (Nos. 5 & 6) pledged adherence to statutes.
Court's Razor: Statutes Trump Superintendence
The Bench framed the core conundrum: Can ECI under
issue such general instructions when BNS/RP Act already govern? Citing
Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka
(2001 (4) SCC 9), it reaffirmed:
"If a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden."
Drawing from Satender Kumar Antil , arrests demand necessity checks under , not routine. , paired with Seventh Schedule entries, bar liberty curbs outside law. Kanhiyalal Omar sealed it: bows to parliamentary enactments.
, the observer
"erred in issuing
by treating certain citizens as '
'."
Key Observations
"It goes without saying that when the election related offences are prescribed in B.N.S. and R.P. Act, 1951, the authorities entrusted therein alone are competent to take action as per their own discretion if any such offence is committed."(Para 16)
"In ourview the police observer in the office of Chief Election Officer, West Bengal has erred in issuingby treating certain citizens as ‘’."(Para 18)
"An arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion... the police officer shall ask himself the question as to whether an arrest is a necessity or not."(Para 15, quoting Satender Kumar Antil)
"Freedom of a citizen can be curtailed only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law."(Para 17)
Stay with Strings: Liberty Protected, Law Enforced
The memo stands stayed till end-June 2026, but with carve-outs: Police can pursue offences under BNS/RP Act via independent discretion—even against listed names. Preventive detention? Strictly per law.
ECI gets four weeks for a counter-affidavit; listing post-five weeks. This balances poll integrity against overreach, signaling courts' vigilance on ECI's expansive amid rising pre-poll tensions. Future directives may need tighter statutory alignment, averting "verbal arrest" fears.
