Calcutta High Court Trusts ECI to Ensure Fair Polls, Disposes PIL After Memo Withdrawal

In a swift move amid escalating tensions ahead of West Bengal's elections, the Calcutta High Court on April 28, 2026, disposed of a public interest litigation challenging a controversial memo from the Election Commission of India (ECI). A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen deemed the petition infructuous after ECI withdrew the directive, but issued a strong reminder on safeguarding personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The case, Md. Danish Farooqui vs. Election Commission of India & Ors. (WPA (P) 209 of 2026), spotlighted clashes between election oversight and individual rights during a high-stakes polling phase.

From One Memo to Another: The Chain of Challenges

The dispute traces back to April 21, 2026, when the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal—via its police observer—issued a memo to the Director General of Police. It listed "trouble-makers" allegedly intimidating voters and urged preventive actions like FIRs, notices under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and monitoring. Petitioner Md. Danish Farooqui challenged it in WPA (P) 192 of 2026, securing an interim stay on April 22 from a coordinate bench, which clarified that police could still act against offenses under BNS or the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but not via blanket directives.

Undeterred, a follow-up memo on April 27—captioned "Preventive actions against persons involved in voter intimidation" —reiterated similar instructions, citing ongoing complaints, attacks on candidates, ECI's last-72-hours SOP, and the prior court's paras 19-20. Annexures A and B named potential intimidators, mandating FIRs, preventive detention if justified, raids on clubs, and accountability for lapses. Farooqui filed this PIL the same day, seeking to quash it as arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21, and a ploy to stifle democratic rights.

Petitioner's Alarm: 'Draconian Overreach'; ECI's Defense: 'Withdrawn, Complying with Law'

Farooqui's counsel, senior advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay , argued the memo defied the April 22 stay, revealed ECI bias toward a political party, and promoted illegal preventive detention. He invoked a June 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Annu @ Aniket vs. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 2920 of 2025), stressing preventive detention as a "drastic measure" requiring utmost caution and strict construction to protect liberty.

The State, via Advocate General Kishore Datta , countered that ECI overstepped by superseding state administration—removing officials and directing police on a state subject. ECI's senior counsel Jishnu Chowdhury announced immediate withdrawal of the April 27 memo, insisting it aligned with the prior order and complaints of violence, like bombings and assaults on candidates. He urged disposal as infructuous, avoiding merits.

Court's Balancing Act: Infructuous, But Liberty First

The bench noted the withdrawal rendered the petition moot, requiring no adjudication on merits. Yet, it delved into precedents like Kanhiya Lal Omar vs. R.K. Trivedi (1985) 4 SCC 628, affirming ECI's Article 324 powers are circumscribed by other laws—echoing the prior stay against blanket "trouble-maker" labels.

No formal orders issued beyond disposal, but the court expressed firm expectations.

Key Observations

“We trust and believe that ECI which is a constitutional authority and all its officers including observers appointed by it shall discharge their respective duties in the election process fairly, efficiently, impartially without any bias, political or otherwise and strictly in accordance with law.” (Paras 15)

“It cannot be gainsaid that it is in the interest of all the citizens of this State that the election scheduled to be held tomorrow (April 29, 2026) is held in a fair, transparent and peaceful manner where each member of the electorate will be able to exercise his franchise freely without any fear.” (Para 16)

“We are also sure that the competent authorities will not resort to preventive detention or arrest of persons excepting where the same is absolutely essential and that too, in accordance with law. One must keep in mind the paramount importance of a citizen’s fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which can be curtailed only by following due process of law.” (Para 17)

As media reports echoed post-judgment—like headlines stressing "Preventive detentions only when absolutely necessary, act without bias" —the order underscores ECI's mandate for zero tolerance on intimidation without trampling rights.

Polls Proceed, Precedent Set for Future Scrutiny

With elections kicking off April 29, the ruling clears hurdles but reinforces guardrails: preventive measures must be law-bound, not presumptive lists. It signals courts' vigilance over ECI directives, potentially shaping handling of vulnerability mapping and silence-period enforcement in heated polls. Allegations remain unadmitted absent affidavits, leaving room for ongoing prior litigation.

This disposition prioritizes seamless voting while prioritizing constitutional safeguards, a win for balanced electoral integrity.