In a significant ruling for civil liberties during election periods, the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday stayed an order issued by an Election Commission (EC) police observer that categorized several hundred citizens as “troublemakers.” The court held that the observer had “erred in issuing blanket direction” without following specific legal procedures.
The matter reached the court via a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging an order dated April 21, 2026. The order, issued by a police observer engaged in the West Bengal assembly elections, identified approximately 800 individuals across various constituencies as “troublemakers” and directed authorities to take action against them.
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate and Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee, argued that the list included elected representatives—including MPs, MLAs, and local councilors. Banerjee contended that the order violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the EC’s memo alleged these individuals were “actively involved in intimidating voters and creating disturbances.” However, he argued that labeling citizens in such a broad manner without specific criminal charges or due process was unconstitutional.
On behalf of the Election Commission of India, Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu maintained that the poll panel’s primary goal is to ensure “free, fair, and peaceful elections.” He argued that the memo served as a reminder to police authorities of their duties and did not instruct them to bypass the law.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen examined whether the EC could issue such general instructions under Article 324 of the Constitution when election-related offences are already covered by specific statutes like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The bench observed:
“In our opinion, an important constitutional/legal question cropped up for our decision as to whether in exercise of power under Article 324 of the Constitution, Election Commission can issue such a general instruction like the present one, when the offences relating to election are statutorily covered under BNS and RP Act, 1951, etc.”
The court emphasized that while authorities have the power to maintain order, they must do so within the bounds of existing penal laws. It further noted that “the freedom of a citizen can be curtailed only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.”
The High Court stayed the effect and operation of the April 21 order until June 30, 2024. However, the bench clarified that this stay does not grant immunity to the named individuals if they actually commit a crime.
The court directed:
“Even if the persons, whose names find place in Annexure A… 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 bench further specified that any “preventive detention or action” must proceed strictly in accordance with relevant detention laws rather than relying on the observer’s blanket “troublemaker” classification.
The Election Commission has been granted four weeks to file an affidavit in opposition. The matter is scheduled for a follow-up hearing in five weeks.
