In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court dismissed a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) order, declaring that the transfers of police officers in preparation for the Maharashtra assembly elections are not merely temporary adjustments. This decision comes after the state government contested the MAT’s earlier ruling that these transfers were provisional and would cease following the election period.
The transfers were initially mandated by a directive from the Election Commission of India (ECI), instructing that government officers who were directly involved in the electoral process and stationed in their home districts be relocated. The state’s Director General of Police had issued these orders under Section 22N(2) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, citing public interest and administrative necessities.
The case reached the high court after some officers challenged their relocations at the MAT, arguing that their transfers were meant to last only until the elections concluded, based on Section 28A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The Tribunal in July 2024 supported this view, treating the transfers as temporary deputations tied explicitly to the duration of election duties.
However, the state’s advocate general, Dr. Birendra Saraf, presented a different interpretation, asserting that Section 28A was not applicable as the transfers were executed under separate legal provisions by the home department. He argued that these were not just routine administrative moves but necessary steps taken to adhere to the ECI’s directives.
Senior advocate Prashant Katneshwarkar, representing the affected officers, countered by claiming the state overstepped its bounds by using elections as a pretext for these transfers, which he argued should only occur under extraordinary circumstances.
The division bench, comprising Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh Patil, sided with the state government, highlighting that the ECI holds comprehensive authority under Article 324 of the Constitution to supervise and manage elections. The judges affirmed that complying with ECI directives inherently serves the public interest, justifying the transfers under the powers granted by the Maharashtra Police Act.
