The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised authorities in West Bengal over an incident in Malda district. Protestors allegedly confined judicial officers engaged in Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duties and later attacked them. The Court directed the deployment of Central Forces to protect judicial officers and ensure smooth conduct of electoral adjudication.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi took up the matter urgently. Although the case was not listed, the Court acted after receiving a letter from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. That communication described the incident in a village in Malda district.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Menaka Guruswamy appeared in the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu represented the Election Commission of India.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice stated that he issued urgent directions late at night to secure the officers’ safety. He highlighted that officials failed to respond in time. He also pointed out that authorities did not supply food or water to the confined officers.
According to the Court, seven judicial officers, including three women, remained surrounded at the site from about 3:30 PM. The Registrar General of the High Court sought immediate assistance from the State administration. However, officials delayed action. Even after senior officers were contacted, they failed to respond effectively.
Authorities released the officers after midnight following intervention by the Chief Justice of the High Court. However, attackers pelted stones and used sticks against their vehicles during their return.
Expressing serious concern, the Court described the incident as an attempt to demoralise judicial officers and undermine judicial authority. It warned that such conduct may amount to criminal contempt. The Bench made it clear that it will not permit anyone to create fear among officers performing official duties.
The Bench also criticised the State administration. It termed the response of key officials highly unsatisfactory. These officials included the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police, and District Collector. The Court noted that they failed to act promptly and did not ensure safe evacuation.
Accordingly, the Court issued notices to the Chief Secretary, DGP, District Magistrate, and Senior Superintendent of Police. It directed them to explain why action should not follow. It also ordered their appearance through video conferencing on April 6 at 4 PM.
To prevent further disruption, the Court issued several directions. It directed the Election Commission of India to requisition and deploy adequate Central Forces at all relevant locations. Additionally, it instructed both the Election Commission and the State Government to take immediate steps to ensure safety.
Further, the Court required authorities to assess any threat to the families of judicial officers and provide protection where necessary. It also restricted entry to adjudication premises, allowing only 3–5 persons at a time.
Moreover, the Court directed the Election Commission to assign the investigation to an independent agency, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation or the National Investigation Agency.
During submissions, Menaka Guruswamy stated that the Election Commission had appointed certain officials after replacing earlier ones. Gopal Sankaranarayanan urged the Court to seek personal affidavits from the concerned officials. Meanwhile, Kalyan Bandhopadhyay argued that the Election Commission bore responsibility since the officers acted under its directions.
After the order was dictated, Kapil Sibal requested the Court to remove the observation regarding a “complete breakdown of law and order,” stating that it may lead to misinterpretation. However, Dama Seshadri Naidu opposed the request and called the observation accurate. The Bench recorded these submissions and indicated that it would consider the issue.
Following the hearing, West Bengal Advocate General Kishore Datta urged that the Election Commission should not act in an adversarial manner. In response, the Chief Justice criticised the increasing politicisation in the State. He observed that such conduct affects compliance with court orders. The Court ultimately emphasised that it will not allow obstruction of judicial duties or intimidation of judicial officers.
