SC expresses concern over intimidation of judicial officers in West Bengal

Supreme Court orders central forces and probe after judicial officers were allegedly confined during electoral roll revision in West Bengal, raising concerns over rule of law

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed grave concern over the intimidation of judicial officers engaged in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, directing the deployment of central armed forces to ensure their protection.

 

The action followed an incident in Malda district where seven judicial officers, including three women judges, were allegedly surrounded and confined for several hours by protesters objecting to their removal from the voter list. Taking suo motu cognisance, the Court registered proceedings.

 

During an urgent hearing, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipin Pancholi criticised the State administration, pointing to a failure in ensuring the safety of judicial officers.

 

 

The Bench observed that the situation reflected a breakdown of administrative responsibility and warned against attempts to undermine judicial functioning through intimidation.

 

"This incident is a brazen attempt not only to browbeat judicial officers but also challenges the authority of this Court. It was not a routine incident but appears to be a calculated, motivated move to demoralise the judicial officers and stop the ongoing process of adjudication of objections in left-out cases. We will not allow anyone to interfere and take the law into their hands in order to create psychological attack on the minds of judicial officers ... This is also an abdication of duty by the West Bengal government and the officers need to furnish reasons why, even after being informed, the officers did not ensure safe evacuation of the officers," the Court said in the order.

 

The Court noted that the officers were stationed at a Block Development Officer’s office when the protest began in the afternoon, and effective intervention was delayed despite repeated alerts from the Calcutta High Court.

 

Senior State officials, including the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, were reportedly absent from the site, requiring intervention at the highest levels to secure the officers’ release after midnight. The Bench also recorded allegations of violence, including stone-pelting, when the officers were escorted out.

 

Emphasising that such acts strike at the rule of law, the Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to deploy central forces for the protection of judicial officers and, where necessary, extend security to their families based on threat assessments. It also ordered regulation of public access to SIR proceedings, limiting the number of individuals permitted to be present during filings and hearings.

 

Further, the Court sought compliance reports from senior state officials, including the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, and the State’s Chief Electoral Officer. It issued notices to key officials asking them to explain the lapses and directed their personal appearance before the Court on April 6.

 

The Bench also ordered that the incident be investigated by a central agency, directing the ECI to assign the probe to either the CBI or the NIA, with a preliminary report to be submitted directly to the Court.

 

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal described the incident as deeply unfortunate, while Senior Advocate Meneka Guruswamy raised concerns regarding administrative changes in the State. Justice Bagchi underscored the need for a unified condemnation of the incident, stating that actions of judicial officers carry the authority of the Court.

 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the State could not be relied upon to ensure the officers’ safety, terming the episode an affront to the rule of law.

 

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan assured cooperation with the Court’s directions, while Senior Advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the ECI, submitted that the officers had effectively been held hostage to disrupt the revision process.

 

Appearing for the State, Advocate General Kishore Datta urged that the poll body should not adopt an adversarial stance. However, the Court remained critical, noting the highly polarised environment and expressing concern over the broader implications for institutional authority.

 

"Unfortunately in your State each one speaks political language and this is the most polarised State. You are forcing us to make observations. Do you think we are not aware of who are the miscreants? I was monitoring everything till 2 am. Very, very unfortunate,” CJI Kant said.

 

The proceedings also saw sharp exchanges between counsel, reflecting tensions over administrative decisions and the handling of the revision exercise.