West Bengal elections: Calcutta High Court stays ECI's 'troublemakers’ list

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday stayed an order issued by electoral authorities in West Bengal that directed action against alleged “troublemakers” ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections [Md Danish Farooqui v. Election Commission of India & Ors].

The order was reportedly issued on the instructions of the Election Commission of India (ECI). A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen said that prima facie, the police observer in the office of the Chief Election Officer, West Bengal erred in issuing such a direction by treating certain citizens as "trouble makers".

"Hence, as an interim measure, we deem it proper to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure – P/1) till the last day of June, 2026 or till further order whichever is earlier," the Court said.

However, it clarified that the stay would not bar the civil or police authorities from proceeding against any person who commits any offence.

"Putting it differently, even if the persons, whose names find place in Annexure –A of letter dated 21.04.2026, commit an offence, this interim order will not come in the way of the authorities to proceed against them in accordance with law as per their own independent discretion."

The order was passed in a public interest litigation (PIL) which alleged that the list of about 800 people contained names of political functionaries across 21 out of 23 districts in West Bengal, including elected representatives and party workers.

The petition alleged that the move was aimed at targeting members of the ruling political party All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) and could seriously impact the conduct of free and fair elections in the State.

“Not a single ground exists, nor has any been communicated, for the proposed arrest of any of the persons featured in the said list. This action is being taken solely to prevent these individuals from participating in the election process for their party,” stated the plea.

The petition was filed through Advocates Md Danish Farooqui and Ratikanta Pal.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, argued that no citizen can be deprived of his right of personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. He also contended that ECI does not have any unbridled powers.

However, he clarified that the petitioner does not have any objection if police authorities take action in accordance with law against the persons accused of any offences.

Advocate General Kishore Datta, appearing for the State government supported the plea. He said that preventive action or detention which curtails the freedom of a citizen can be taken only in accordance with law and also to the extent law. However, he argued that criminal law set into motion by the ECI was "in a manner unknown to law".

Senior Advocate DS Naidu for the ECI argued that the poll body's endeavour was to ensure free, fair and peaceful elections.

"In order to do the same, concerned police authorities are reminded of their duties. The Election Commission has not directed the police authorities to do something without following due recourse of law," Naidu said.

Considering the submissions, the Court observed that an important constitutional question had arisen before it.

It will consider whether the Election Commission of India (ECI), while exercising its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, can issue general instructions like the one in the present case when election-related offences are already governed by provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Representation of the People Act.

The Court has granted four week's time to the ECI to respond to the plea. Considering that the elections are scheduled on April 23 and April 29, the Court stayed the ECI instructions in the meantime.

"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," the Bench said.

The matter will be taken up for consideration after five weeks.

[Read Order]