CJI Surya Kant-led Bench issues show cause notices, orders independent probe and deployment of central forces in SIR-related violence in Malda
Supreme Court takes suo motu cognizance; issues directions to protect judicial officers
The Supreme Court, by an order passed on April 2, 2026 in In Re: Incident concerning judicial officers in West Bengal (Diary No. 19822/2026), took serious note of the gherao and detention of seven judicial officers in Malda district and termed the incident a “complete failure of the state administration” and a “brazen attempt” to undermine the authority of the Court.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued showcause notices to the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Malda, directing them to explain their inaction. The Court further directed their virtual appearance on April 6, 2026.
The matter arose from a communication sent by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court detailing an incident during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.
Approximately 700 judicial officers had been deployed to adjudicate over 60 lakh claims relating to voter list exclusions. During this process, seven judicial officers, including three women, were allegedly gheraoed by a mob at a Block Development Office in Kaliachak, Malda district from around 3:30 PM and held for over nine hours.
The officers were reportedly denied food and water and were released only after midnight following intervention at the highest administrative levels. Even after their release, their vehicles were allegedly attacked with stones and sticks.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the protest was “apolitical” in nature.
The Advocate General for West Bengal, Kishore Datta, argued that the Election Commission of India should not act in an adversarial manner in the matter.
The Bench rejected the characterisation of the incident as routine or apolitical, observing that:
- The incident was “ex facie a calculated, deliberate move to demoralise judicial officers”
- It amounted to “criminal contempt” and a direct challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court
- Judicial officers engaged in SIR were acting as “extended hands” of the Court
The Court recorded a detailed timeline, noting that despite intimation at 3:30 PM, no effective action was taken till late evening:
“Nothing… was done till 8:30 PM… Even food and water was not permitted.”
The Bench expressed strong disapproval of the State administration:
“This amounts to a complete failure of state administration… highly deplorable.”
The Court also remarked on the delay and lack of response from senior officials, including the inability to contact the Chief Secretary in a timely manner.
In oral observations, the CJI criticised the politicisation of the issue, noting that the State appeared “highly polarised” and that even compliance with court orders reflected political overtones.
Justice Bagchi emphasised that the incident required unanimous condemnation and reaffirmed that orders of judicial officers in the process carry the authority of the Court.
The Court issued a series of directions to ensure the safety of judicial officers and the integrity of the SIR process:
- Directed the Election Commission of India to requisition and deploy adequate Central Armed Police Forces at all SIR adjudication sites
- Ordered that the incident be investigated by an independent agency such as the CBI or NIA, with a preliminary report to be submitted directly to the Court
- Issued showcause notices to senior State officials for failure to act
- Directed that no more than five persons be allowed to assemble at locations where judicial officers are functioning
- Ordered immediate assessment of threat perception to judicial officers and their families, with appropriate security measures
- Mandated the Election Commission to take all remedial steps to ensure safe and smooth conduct of the SIR process
The Court clarified that it would not permit any attempt to create “psychological fear” among judicial officers and would ensure protection of their life, liberty, property and family members.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 6, 2026, when compliance reports and responses from the State officials are expected to be considered by the Court.
