On Thursday, in a serious constitutional concern over judicial safety and administrative accountability, the Supreme Court stepped in to scrutinise an alarming breakdown of governance in West Bengal, where judicial officers on election duty were allegedly left vulnerable during a hostile gherao. The Court’s focus turned sharply on whether the State machinery failed in its fundamental duty to protect officers acting under judicial mandate, raising questions about delayed response, lack of coordination, and a startling communication gap at the highest bureaucratic level.
The controversy began when seven judicial officers, including women judges, were surrounded by anti-social elements at a BDO office in Maldah district while performing duties related to electoral roll revision. Despite urgent alerts from the Calcutta High Court registry around mid-afternoon, the situation reportedly dragged on for hours without effective intervention. Counsel pointed to a troubling sequence, official assurances without action, absence of senior district authorities on the ground, and even restrictions on basic necessities like food and water for the stranded officers. Matters escalated further when, after their eventual release past midnight, the officers allegedly faced attacks on their return journey. The incident triggered a suo motu response from the apex court, with the State attempting to deflect responsibility by pointing to administrative reshuffles carried out by the Election Commission.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, termed the conduct of top officials deeply disturbing, flagging a critical breakdown in communication during the crisis. The Court recorded, “We are also extremely disappointed… that the Chief Secretary of the State could not be contacted… as he had not shared a mobile number with WhatsApp facility.” It went on to term the overall response of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, DGP and district officials as “highly deplorable,” noting that the delay in action amounted to a serious failure of duty. Viewing the incident as a deliberate attempt to intimidate judicial officers and undermine the authority of the Court, the bench warned that such acts could attract criminal contempt.
Consequently, the Court issued a series of stringent directions, including the deployment of central forces, initiation of an independent probe, and show-cause notices to senior officials, while mandating their personal appearance in the next hearing.
Case Title: In Re: Safety and Security of Judicial Officers Deputed For Work Relating To SIR of Electoral Rolls in The State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues
Case No.: Suo Moto Writ Petition(Civil) No(s). 3/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul Pancholi
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Courts Motion
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. D.S. Naidu, Sr. Adv. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Menaka Guruswamy, AOR Kunal Chatterji, AOR Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Adv. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mahima Cholera, Adv. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. S. Divatia, Adv. Ankur Singhal, Adv. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ram Narayan Mohanty, Adv. Debanjan Mandal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
