The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to transfer senior IAS and IPS officers in West Bengal ahead of elections, upholding the Commission’s authority in ensuring free and fair polls.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen rejected the plea filed by advocate Arka Kumar Nag, who had sought quashing of the transfer orders on the ground that they were arbitrary, stigmatic and issued without justification.
At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner himself was a counsel representing the State government, a factor relevant in assessing the nature of the PIL.
The petitioner contended that the large-scale transfer of key officials, including the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and other senior officers, interfered with the functioning of an elected government and violated federal principles. It was further argued that the ECI’s powers under Article 324 are not unfettered and must operate within the statutory framework of the Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951.
Supporting the petitioner, the State submitted that such transfers “numb” the administration and exceed the scope of “such staff” that can be placed under ECI control during elections.
Opposing the plea, the ECI defended its actions as part of its constitutional mandate to ensure free, fair and smooth elections, emphasising its independent and neutral status under Article 324.
The Court, however, held that the legality of transfer orders cannot be examined in a PIL unless it is shown that such actions have caused prejudice to the public at large. Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, it reiterated that only matters involving demonstrable public injury are amenable to public interest litigation.
On facts, the Court found that the petitioner failed to establish that the transfers would lead to administrative collapse or deprive the public of welfare benefits. Allegations of political nexus and mala fides were also found to be unsupported by material particulars, with no concerned individuals impleaded.
The Court further observed at paragraph 63 that:
“existence of power with ECI is not in dispute. It could not be established that the power is used in an arbitrary manner, which resulted into any injury to public interest. In absence of establishing this elementary ingredient to maintain a PIL, petition cannot be entertained.”
Accordingly, holding that the essential requirement of public injury was not satisfied, the Court dismissed the PIL as devoid of substance, thereby upholding the ECI’s actions in the run-up to elections.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Adv.; Ms. Shrobana Sengupta, Adv.; Mr. Kaushik Bandyopadhyay, Adv.
For the ECI : Mr. DamaSeshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Soumya Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Anamika Pandey; Mr. Abhinav Thakur; Mr. Surjaneel Das; Mr. Kumar Utsav; Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey
For the State : Mr. Kishore Datta, AG; Mr. Swapan Banerjee; Ms. Sumita Shaw; Mr. Diptendu Narayan Banerjee; Mr. Soumen Chatterjee
