Supreme Court Slams ‘Complete Failure’ of Administration in West Bengal After Judicial Officers Held Hostage in Malda

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi moved swiftly to secure the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. It directed the Election Commission of India to immediately requisition and deploy central forces at all places where judicial officers are adjudicating voter objections. The court also asked the ECI to hand over the probe into the April 1 incident to either the CBI or the NIA, while issuing notices to the chief secretary, director general of police, home secretary and district officials of West Bengal to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

Posting the matter for April 6, the bench directed the officials to remain present online, adding that it would closely monitor compliance of its directions and the probe into the incident. The order was anchored in a detailed account received from the Calcutta High Court chief justice, which painted a disturbing picture of administrative paralysis. Seven judicial officers, including three women, were confined for nearly 10 hours inside a BDO office in Kaliachak, Malda, after being surrounded by protesters from around 2.30pm on Wednesday.

Despite urgent communications from the high court registry to the state administration, no effective action was taken until late in the night. The officers were denied even basic necessities such as food and water, and senior officials, including the district magistrate and superintendent of police, did not reach the spot. The situation escalated to the point where the high court chief justice himself had to intervene, with the DGP and home secretary eventually arriving at his residence around 11pm. The officers were released only around midnight, and even then, they were pelted with stones and assaulted with bamboo sticks while leaving the premises.

Terming the episode “shocking”, the Supreme Court observed that it was not a routine incident and appeared to be a deliberate move to demoralise judicial officers and obstruct them from discharging their duties. It added that such conduct amounted to challenging the authority of the court, since the officers were acting as its “extended hands” in supervising the SIR process.

During the hearing, the bench expressed visible displeasure at attempts to shift responsibility between the state administration and the ECI. At the outset, the Chief Justice asked, “Have you all seen what happened yesterday?” As senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, acknowledged the incident, the bench questioned the failure of authorities to maintain law and order.

Senior counsel for the state, including advocate general Kishore Datta and senior counsels Menaka Guruswamy and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued that the administration was effectively under the control of the ECI due to the ongoing electoral process. The court firmly rejected the contention, stating that it made no good to claim lack of control and underlining that the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order rests with the state.

The bench also took note of the presence of political actors at the protest site, questioning their role in what was claimed to be an apolitical protest. It remarked that it had not seen such politicisation in any state, cautioning that even judicial officers were being targeted amid the charged atmosphere surrounding the SIR exercise.

The court emphasised that judicial officers tasked with adjudicating voter objections were functioning under its authority, and any attempt to intimidate or obstruct them would have serious consequences. It warned that it would not allow anyone to take law into their own hands to create psychological fear among officers, noting that the incident could have a chilling effect on officials working relentlessly, including on weekends, to complete the massive exercise involving millions of voter objections.

To restore confidence and ensure continuity of the SIR exercise, the court issued comprehensive directions placing responsibility on both the ECI and the state machinery. The ECI was directed to deploy adequate central forces at all adjudication venues and ensure security at the residences of judicial officers and their family members. The state government, acting under the ECI’s directions, was asked to take all necessary measures to ensure officers can function without fear or obstruction.

Strict access control was mandated at adjudication centres, allowing no more than three persons at any given time to prevent crowding or intimidation. The court further directed that the probe into the gheraoing be entrusted to either the CBI or the NIA, with a compliance report to be filed before it. The investigating agency will submit its findings directly to the Supreme Court.

The bench came down heavily on senior state officials, noting that the chief secretary could not be contacted at a critical juncture and had not shared accessible communication details. Calling the administrative response “highly deplorable”, it said officials must explain why no effective measures were taken for the safe evacuation of judicial officers despite clear warnings and escalating risk. It observed that the lapse amounted to criminal contempt, linking the failure directly to a breakdown of constitutional responsibility.

The incident unfolded amid widespread protests in Malda district, where demonstrators alleged large-scale deletion of names from electoral rolls as part of the SIR exercise. Roads and highways were blocked in several areas, and tensions escalated through the day. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court had already underscored that the right to vote is a valuable constitutional right that cannot be washed out in an oppressive manner, while permitting tribunals to consider fresh documents from aggrieved voters and cautioning against any attempt to pressure judicial officers.

The court’s intervention marks a significant assertion of judicial authority, underscoring that any attempt to intimidate officers acting under its mandate will be treated as a direct challenge to the constitutional order