|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
IN a setback for West Bengal Chief Minster Mamata Banerjee, the Calcutta High Court (HC) has rubbished arguments that the transfer of officials by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the impending assembly polls in the state has created an administrative “numb” which will paralyse the state.
Dismissing a PIL by Advocate Arka Kumar Nag, a High Court bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen said Tuesday (March 31, 2026), that it also did not find any reason to hold that while shifting/transferring officers of the state, the ECI did any step motherly treatment towards the state.
Writing for the bench, the CJI said, “it was strenuously contended by” Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay appearing for the petitioner and Advocate General Kishore Datta for the state “that because of transfer of a sizable number of officers and staff, there is a vacuum created or if we borrow the word used by learned Advocate General, there is a “numb” like situation in the State. Upon examining the rival stands, we do not find much substance in the said contention.”
The court said, “no doubt, bureaucracy plays a vital role in implementing the policies and decisions taken by ministers and Government and in their absence, the policies cannot be translated into reality, in the instant case, in place of transferred officers other officers have joined…However, in the present case, it is seen that when one officer is transferred, another has occupied his position. Thus, as such there is no vacuum created in the system or in the administrative arena.”
The bench said that the contention ECI counsel D.S. Naidu, “that in place of Chief Secretary and Home Secretary, officers who are 1 and 7 years senior to them respectively were posted, was not disputed by petitioner and the State. Thus, it cannot be said that administrative “numb‟ has been created and Government will paralyse if till election, this arrangement has been made to ensure free & fair elections.”
The ruling said that “merely because the ECI had transferred a sizable number of officers, it cannot be said that action is arbitrary, capricious or malafide. More so, when similar or more number of transfers/posting of officers had taken place nationwide.”
The court said that a “careful reading of the petition…leaves no room for any doubt that petitioner has not disputed the existence of power with” the Commission “to transfer/shift the officers after issuance of election notification to ensure free and fair election.”
It added that the fact being that “the existence of power of ECI to transfer/shift officers is admitted, we are not inclined to conduct any roving enquiry and analysis to examine whether” the poll body “otherwise had any such power or not.”
The HC said that “the ECI has taken administrative decisions to transfer/shift the officers. This is trite that scope of judicial review on administrative decisions is limited. If administrative order is found to be passed without authority or shown to be palpably illegal, interference can be made.”
The court also referred to the ECI’s contention that the press note dated March 17, 2026 “shows that the posting/transfer of IAS officers in good numbers is a pan India exercise.” It added that this “is not disputed either by the petitioner or by the State. Thus, we find no reason to hold that while shifting/transferring officers of State of West Bengal, ECI did any step motherly treatment.”
The HC said that “transfer is an incident of service. If transfer order runs contrary to any statutory provision, the aggrieved employee/officer can assail it in appropriate proceedings.”
The court stated that “in our view, the legality, validity and propriety of transfer orders which have not caused any public injury cannot be gone into in a public interest litigation.”
It however clarified that the judgment “will not come in the way of the individual aggrieved officers to challenge their transfer order in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.”
What the petitioner argued?
The petitioner contended that on 15.03.2026 at 3 p.m., the Election Commission of India (ECI) issued a notification declaring elections in five States of the country. After issuing the notification, the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police (DGP), certain District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police were transferred. The Principal Secretary of certain departments who were taking care of development activities of the State were also transferred. One officer Jagdish Prasad was transferred as observer to Tamil Nadu. The mass transfer of officers who were working for the welfare of people in the State will have cascading effect on the functioning of the State.
