The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the challenge to the Calcutta High Court order upholding the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s decision to transfer bureaucrats and police officers in the state in the run-up to the West Bengal Assembly polls. The apex court said it was “compelled” to depute judicial officers for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise because of the trust deficit existing between the poll body and the state government.
Presiding over a three-judge bench, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also flagged the lack of independence in the bureaucracy and said officials “surrender” for “plum postings”, frustrating the very object of creation of All India Services.
“Unfortunately, this is the misfortune of the country, that the very object of creation of All India Services is getting frustrated. Officers are also only for the sake of plum postings, for all personal benefits, they go, and they surrender completely only to secure transfer, postings, etc, to better places. This is how the impression sometimes is created in the minds of the general public that we will not be able to get a fair opportunity, we will not be able to get fair treatment… This impression needs to be addressed,” the CJI said.
About the apex court deputing judicial officers for the SIR exercise, the CJI said, “Why did we have to depute our judicial officers for that? Because of the trust deficit on both sides. They have no trust in the officers of the state government; the state has no trust in the officers sought to be brought in from outside. And therefore, we had no choice.”
‘Fight between Election Commission and Bengal’
He made the remarks as Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the appellant Advocate Arka Kumar Nag, informed the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, that ECI’s actions in West Bengal were unprecedented.
“One thousand and one hundred officers have been transferred overnight. Under what assessment? One thousand, my Lord. This is the first time in West Bengal that a chief secretary has been transferred, and Your Lordships have recorded it in the order. The day she appeared before Your Lordships’ court, an order was recorded,” he said.
“There is a fight between the Election Commission and the state. And who was representing the state? The chief secretary. For the first time in India, a chief secretary was transferred the very day the notification was issued because she opposed the suggestions. Is that a fault? Is it a ground for transfer?” the senior counsel asked.
Story continues below this ad
On the transfer of officials, the CJI said, “It is not something that has happened for the first time or happened only in one state”.
Bandopadhyay said the ECI has to act in accordance with the statutory provisions, which require consultation with the state government. “Till 2025, even in the case of a bye-election, consultation with the state government has happened in West Bengal. But no consultation has happened this time,” he said.
The CJI said the Calcutta High Court “has examined” it “threadbare”.
Bandopadhyay said the HC “has not given the answers to the legal questions at all”. “Threadbare arguments were made, but a threadbare answer was not given”.
Story continues below this ad
CJI Kant said, “The officers who have been transferred or posted, they are all of West Bengal cadre. It is not that people were brought from outside. They are all your (state government’s_ serving officers,” and wondered what prejudice is caused if they occupy A post or B post”.
Bandopadhyay said the “question is not of prejudice, but that a mandatory provision of the statute is violated.” To which, the CJI said that “consultation is not concurrence”.
‘Question of law is kept open’
However, the senior counsel said it cannot mean a lack of consultation, too. He pointed out that even after the transfer, instances like the one in Kaliachak had happened. “After the changes, what happened? The Kaliachak incident occurred. The question is about competent officers. There may be many officers, but they are not all equally competent. How did the Kaliachak incident happen? And the law-and-order problems in other places?” he said.
CJI Kant said that only when a person is given the opportunity to perform can one know whether they are competent or incompetent. The court said the question raised by Bandopadhyay can be decided in an appropriate case.
Story continues below this ad
“Instead of deciding academically, we will decide in an appropriate case. We will keep the question of law open because we understand that this kind of situation may arise. But as of now, the point is only that consultation is not concurrence,” the CJI said.
When Bandopadhyay said the practise of bringing observers from outside the state is new, the CJI pointed out that it is at least 20 years old.
Bandopadhyay said he is not arguing that it is not good, but Parliament should make the necessary changes in the law to enable this.
CJI Kant underscored the consequences of the argument. “Today, in a particular factual background, if you say ECI will not do it because there is no parliamentary legislation authorising it. But look at the consequences…Forget about allegations; we are only speaking of EC as a constitutional institution. Tomorrow, if EC is required to take some drastic measures to ensure a free and fair election, and if you start questioning them, saying there is no Parliamentary legislation authorising them?”
Story continues below this ad
The apex court said in its order that the appellant “has raised some substantial questions of law which might require consideration”. “However, keeping in view the stage and the polling schedule to take place in the state, we are inclined to entertain this SLP. The question of law is kept open.”
Dismissing the petition on March 31, 2026, the HC bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen said it also did not find any reason to hold that while shifting/transferring officers of the state, ECI did any step-motherly treatment towards the state.
