The superintendence power of election authorities is not absolute and must conform to existing laws. Blanket administrative restrictions on public movement during elections, which lack a direct nexus to preventing electoral malpractice and are disproportionate to the stated objectives, are subject to judicial review.

Judgment :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20th April, 2026 wherein the Chief Electoral Officer has issued an order by imposing restriction on motorcycle riding /rally on polling day-2 and on polling day for conduct of free, fair, peaceful and violence free Election–2026. The petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 has issued the said order without any authority. He submits that by issuing the said impugned order infringed the fundamental right of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that it is settled law that if a statue described a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 has issued blanket prohibition orders bears no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. He submits that after issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner has made representation to the respondent no. 3 and on receipt of the representation of the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 has modified the impugned order by an order dated 21st April, 2026 by giving exemption to service providers like Ola/Uber/ Zomato/Swiggy and similar home delivery agency, exemption also given to the office going riders with carrying proper identity card.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even in the modification, the restriction mentioned in the impugned order with regard to the motorcycle has not been exempted. He submits that the impugned order issued by the respondent no. 3 does not support any statutory law by giving any authorization to the respondent no. 3 to pass the same.

5. The petitioner in support of his case, has relied upon the judgment in the case of Bhagyoday Janparishad vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2013 GUJ 2014 and submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court clarified that the powers vested in the Election Commission under Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India, are wide in nature. The exercise of powers is, however, not without a check. The power has to be exercised with legal circumspection.

6. He has further relied upon the judgment in the case of R. Rajangam Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxists), Puducherry vs. Union Territory of Puducherry reported in AIR OnLine 2021 Mad 265 and submits that prohibition should not be regarded as a blanket prohibition of movement of motorcycle.

7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the order passed by the respondent no. 3 without any conformity of statutory law. He submits that there is a distinction between exercise of good faith and misuse in bad faith. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an improper motive say to satisfy a private and personal grudge. He further submits that the Court always acted to restrain to misuse of statutory power and more readily when improper motives underline it. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. He further submits that the general power of superintendence, direction and control of the election vested in the Commission under Article 324(