SC slams ‘complete failure’ of West Bengal administration, orders central forces

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like The Supreme Court on Thursday deprecated the “complete failure of civil and police administration” in West Bengal, taking suo motu cognisance of the hostage-taking of seven judicial officers in Malda district and describing it as a “deplorable” and “calculated, well-planned” attempt to browbeat the judiciary and challenge the authority of the apex court. Supreme Court of India. (PTI)A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi moved swiftly to secure the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to immediately requisition and deploy central forces at all places where judicial officers are adjudicating voter objections. The court also asked the ECI to hand over the probe into the April 1 incident to either the CBI or the NIA, while issuing notices to the chief secretary, director general of police, home secretary and district officials of West Bengal to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. Posting the matter for April 6, the bench directed the officials to remain present online, adding that it would closely monitor compliance of its directions and the probe into the incident. The court’s order was anchored in a detailed account received from the Calcutta High Court chief justice, which painted a disturbing picture of administrative paralysis. Seven judicial officers, including three women, were confined for nearly 10 hours inside a BDO office in Kaliachak, Malda, after being surrounded by protesters from around 2.30pm on Wednesday. Despite urgent communications from the high court registry to the state administration, no effective action was taken until late in the night. The officers were denied even basic necessities such as food and water, and senior officials, including the district magistrate and superintendent of police, did not reach the spot. The situation escalated to the point where the high court chief justice himself had to intervene, with the DGP and home secretary eventually arriving at his residence around 11pm. The officers were released only around midnight, and even then, the court recorded, they were pelted with stones and assaulted with bamboo sticks while leaving the premises. Terming the episode “shocking”, the Supreme Court said: “This is not a routine incident…it ex facie appears to be a calculated and deliberate move to demoralise judicial officers and obstruct them from discharging their duties.” The bench added that such conduct “amounts to challenging the authority of this court”, since the officers were acting as its “extended hands” in supervising the SIR process. During the hearing, the bench expressed visible displeasure at attempts to shift responsibility between the state administration and the ECI. At the outset, the CJI asked, “Have you all seen what happened yesterday?” As senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, acknowledged the incident, the bench questioned the failure of authorities to maintain law and order. When senior counsel for the state, including state’s advocate general Kishore Datta and senior counsel Menaka Guruswamy and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued that the administration was effectively under the control of the ECI due to the ongoing electoral process, the court firmly rejected the contention. “It makes no good to say we were not in charge,” retorted the bench, underlining that the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order rests with the state. The court also took note of the presence of political actors at the protest site. “If it was apolitical, what were political leaders doing in it? What was their duty? Why was law and order taken into their hands?” the bench asked pointedly. In a telling remark, the bench said it had “not seen such politicisation in any state”, cautioning that even judicial officers were being targeted in the charged atmosphere surrounding the SIR exercise. The court underlined that the judicial officers tasked with adjudicating voter objections were functioning under its authority, and any attempt to intimidate or obstruct them would have serious consequences. “Our previous orders speak volumes…the judicial officers are our extended hands,” the bench observed, adding that any breach of their functioning would be construed as contempt of court. It further warned that it would not allow “anyone to take law into their own hands to create a psychological fear in the minds of judicial officers”. The bench noted with concern that the incident was likely to have a “chilling effect” on officers who have been working relentlessly, including on weekends, to complete the massive exercise involving millions of voter objections. In a bid to restore confidence and ensure continuity of the SIR exercise, the court issued a comprehensive set of directions, placing the onus on both the ECI and the state machinery. The ECI was directed to requisition adequate central forces and deploy them at all adjudication venues, while also ensuring security at the places where judicial officers are staying, as well as for their family members. The state government, acting under ECI’s directions, was asked to take all necessary remedial measures to ensure that officers can function without fear or obstruction. The court also mandated that strict access control be maintained at adjudication centres, with no more than three persons allowed at any given time, to prevent crowding or intimidation. Notably, the bench directed that the probe into the gheraoing be entrusted to either the CBI or the NIA, with a compliance report to be filed before the court. The investigating agency will submit its findings directly to the Supreme Court. In its order, the court came down heavily on the conduct of senior state officials, noting that the chief secretary could not even be contacted at a critical juncture and had not shared accessible communication details. Calling the response of the administration “highly deplorable”, the bench said the officials must explain why no effective measures were taken for the safe evacuation of judicial officers, despite clear warnings and escalating risk. “This undoubtedly amounts to criminal contempt,” the court observed, tying the administrative lapse directly to a breakdown of constitutional responsibility. The incident unfolded against the backdrop of widespread protests in Malda district, where demonstrators alleged large-scale deletion of names from electoral rolls as part of the SIR exercise. In several areas, roads and highways were blocked, and tensions escalated through the day. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court had already underscored that the right to vote is a “valuable” constitutional right that cannot be “washed out” in an “oppressive” manner, while permitting tribunals to consider fresh documents from aggrieved voters. The court had also cautioned against any attempt to pressure judicial officers, making it clear that they must be allowed to function independently.