Calcutta High Court Questions Election Commission Over Professor Appointments in West Bengal Elections The Calcutta High Court has raised serious concerns about the Election Commission’s decision to appoint university professors as polling officers for the 2026 West Bengal assembly elections. The court, led by Justice Krishna Rao, challenged the commission’s authority to include academics in electoral duties, citing potential disruptions to educational institutions. The controversy stems from a legal challenge filed by a group of professors who argue that their involvement in election work would compromise their academic responsibilities. The Election Commission initially issued a directive allowing professors to serve as polling officers, a move that sparked immediate backlash from the academic community. Professors claimed the directive would force them to leave their campuses during election periods, disrupting teaching and research. They argued that the commission’s decision lacked legal justification and violated the principle of academic freedom. The court, during a hearing on April 16, 2026, questioned the commission’s rationale, emphasizing that the directive appeared arbitrary and lacked clear guidelines. Justice Rao criticized the commission for its inconsistent approach, noting that the same directive had been issued without prior consultation with stakeholders. He pointed out that the commission’s own notice allowed for the inclusion of judges as polling officers, yet it failed to address the unique challenges faced by academics. The judge also highlighted the potential consequences of the directive, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent for the involvement of professionals in electoral processes.#west_bengal #supreme_court #election_commission #calcutta_high_court #professors
Bengal: EC exempts SSC officials from Assembly election duty The Election Commission of India has exempted officials of the School Service Commission (SSC) from participating in Assembly election-related duties, ensuring the ongoing teacher recruitment process in Bengal is not disrupted. This decision came after the SSC, which was managing the recruitment of teachers and non-teaching staff for classes 9 to 12, faced a staffing crisis due to the deployment of 24 of its employees for polling work. The move was announced on April 1, following a legal battle that had been ongoing since March 25. The SSC had approached the Calcutta High Court, seeking relief from the Election Commission’s directive to deploy its staff for election duties. The commission had initially assigned 24 SSC officials as polling officers on March 1, leaving only 11 staff members to handle the recruitment process. The SSC’s lawyer argued that this shortage would make it impossible to meet the Supreme Court’s deadline of August 31, 2026, to complete the recruitment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching workers whose jobs had been canceled in April 2025 due to a corruption scandal. The SSC had previously requested the bench of Justice Krishna Rao of the Calcutta High Court to recognize its autonomy and assert that its staff could not be diverted for election work. The commission had stated that 35 employees of the SSC were handling both its administrative tasks and the recruitment process. However, the deployment of 24 of them for polling duties left only 11 staff to manage the recruitment, which included conducting interviews for thousands of positions. The Supreme Court had ordered the SSC to restart the recruitment process after invalidating the previous appointments, which were deemed corrupt.#supreme_court_of_india #election_commission_of_india #calcutta_high_court #school_service_commission #krishna_rao
Supreme Court Disappointed Over West Bengal Officials' Response to Judicial Officers' Gherao The Supreme Court expressed profound disappointment on Thursday over the administrative response to the gherao (blockade) of judicial officers in West Bengal, particularly highlighting the inability to contact the Chief Secretary of the state during the crisis. The court criticized the conduct of senior officials, including the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police (DGP), Collector, and Superintendent of Police, as "highly deplorable" for their failure to ensure the safety of judicial officers during a critical incident. The incident occurred on March 16 when seven judicial officers, including three women, were gheraoed by anti-social elements at a BDO (Block Development Officer) office in Kaliachowk, Maldah district, around 3:30 p.m. The High Court authorities urgently sought intervention, but the state administration responded with "conspicuous inertia" until approximately 8:30 p.m. The Supreme Court noted that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court had informed the court that the Chief Secretary could not be reached because he had not provided a WhatsApp contact number, leading to a breakdown in communication during the emergency. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi, emphasized that the inability to contact the Chief Secretary was a significant failure in the state's administrative response. The court stated that the Chief Secretary's absence from the communication process "resulted in no effective measures being taken to secure the safe evacuation of the judicial officers.#chief_secretary #west_bengal #supreme_court #election_commission_of_india #calcutta_high_court
Former Calcutta High Court Justice Sahidullah Munshi on Exclusion from West Bengal SIR Exercise Former Calcutta High Court Justice Sahidullah Munshi has been marked as “not found” in the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise despite submitting documents twice and undergoing verification. Munshi and his family members were excluded from the first draft of the rolls, raising concerns about the transparency and fairness of the process. Munshi explained that after the initial SIR notification, he and his family submitted all required documents to the Booth Level Officer. However, their names did not appear in the draft list, prompting worry. He was later called to the Entally office, where Election Commission officials conducted a fresh verification. Despite re-submitting his documents, his name remained marked as “not found” in the supplementary list, while his wife and son were labeled as “under adjudication.” Munshi expressed frustration over the lack of clarity regarding the reasons for his exclusion. “I do not know on what ground I can appeal before the appellate tribunal,” he stated. He also criticized the absence of proper documentation and receipts for the submitted papers, which left him uncertain about the validity of his submissions. Munshi emphasized that he intentionally avoided providing documents related to his former judicial position to be treated equally with common citizens. “I do not want to submit any sort of documents which says that I was a former High Court judge,” he said, highlighting his desire for impartial treatment. He further questioned the effectiveness of the appellate tribunals established for the SIR process, noting that they lack clear guidelines and operational frameworks.#supreme_court_of_india #election_commission_of_india #calcutta_high_court #sahidullah_munshi #west_bengal_sir
