Judicial Officers Held Hostage in Malda for Over Nine Hours, Supreme Court Calls Incident ‘Calculated and Motivated’

The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India to have the incident probed by either the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the National Investigation Agency, and stated that it will monitor the investigation.

The incident occurred in Bengal’s Malda, where seven judicial officers, including three women, were gheraoed by a group of voters whose names had been deleted from the voter list during the Special Intensive Revision exercise. The officers were surrounded from approximately 3.30 pm and remained held hostage for over nine hours.

They were rescued only around 1 am after a massive contingent of police and paramilitary personnel intervened. During the evacuation, there was an attempt to attack the vehicles transporting the officers. Visuals showed shattered window glass and angry protesters hurling stones, while attacks with sticks were also reported as the officers were moved to safety.

Chief Justice Surya Kant noted the prolonged detention and the violence during the rescue, stating that the officers were released only after midnight and were attacked even during evacuation. Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that all political leaders must condemn the incident in one voice, asserting that the court is responsible for protecting the special officers and that their orders are deemed to be orders of the court. He further directed the Election Commission to secure adequate forces from any available source to ensure the safety of judicial officers.

The Chief Justice also highlighted that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court had to personally contact the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary to ensure assistance reached the officers. He described the incident as a brazen attempt not only to browbeat judicial officers but also to challenge the authority of the Supreme Court, adding that it was not routine but a calculated and motivated move to demoralise judicial officers and disrupt the ongoing adjudication process of left-out cases.

He further stated that the court would not allow anyone to interfere or take the law into their own hands to create psychological pressure on judicial officers. The court also termed the situation an abdication of duty by the West Bengal government and directed concerned officials to explain why, despite being informed, they failed to ensure safe evacuation.

The Supreme Court instructed the Election Commission and the state government to take all necessary steps to guarantee the safety of judicial officers engaged in completing their assigned responsibilities. It also ordered that no more than two or three persons be allowed to enter to file objections or attend hearings, and that assemblies be restricted to no more than five individuals.

Directing immediate investigative action, the court ordered the Election Commission to entrust the enquiry to either the CBI or the NIA, with a compliance report to be submitted to the court. The agency assigned must submit a preliminary enquiry report directly to the court.

During the proceedings, when West Bengal Advocate General Kishore Dutta argued that the Election Commission should not act as an adversary since the model code of conduct is in force, the Chief Justice responded sharply, stating that in the state, “each one speaks a political language” and reiterating that it is the “most polarised state.” He added that the court is aware of the identities of the miscreants and had monitored the situation until 2 am, calling the developments “very, very unfortunate.”

Following the incident, Bengal Chief Minister Mamata

Banerjee stated that law and order was not under the control of the state government due to the enforcement of the model code of conduct. She said, “The law and order are not in my hand, the administration is not in my hand. The Election Commission is monitoring everything. My officials have been changed.”

The incident underscores a grave challenge to judicial authority and administrative accountability, raising serious concerns over the safety of judicial officers and the enforcement of law and order during critical electoral processes.