EC can transfer officials for polls sans explanation: Cal HC

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has upheld the Election Commission of India’s (EC) authority to transfer officials during elections, observing that such decisions—aimed at ensuring free and fair polls—do not require detailed reasons and are subject to limited judicial review.

Dismissing a PIL challenging large-scale transfers of bureaucrats and police officers in West Bengal after the announcement of elections, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that the Commission’s power to shift officials was not in dispute.

The court noted that the petitioner himself had acknowledged in the pleadings that the EC possesses the power to transfer officers. The Bench said it would not undertake any “roving enquiry” into the existence or scope of such power, nor examine issues beyond the pleadings.

A key observation of the court was that the EC is not under any obligation to assign reasons for transferring officers during the election period. Such decisions, it said, are based on the Commission’s confidence in officials to ensure neutrality and are temporary—limited to the electoral process.

Rejecting the contention that the transfers had paralysed the administration, the Bench held that no “numb” situation had arisen, noting that transferred officers had been replaced, in some cases by more senior officials, ensuring continuity.

The court accepted the Commission’s stand that the transfers were part of a nationwide exercise, with similar or higher numbers of officials shifted in other states, negating allegations of any targeted or mala fide action against West Bengal.

On judicial review, the Bench reiterated that courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless they are without authority or patently illegal. A mere possibility of a different view is no ground for interference.

The court observed that transfer is an incident of service, and any grievance must be raised by affected officers before the appropriate forums.

It held that a PIL is maintainable only where a clear public injury is shown. In this case, the petitioner failed to establish that the transfers adversely affected the public or disrupted governance.

Dismissing the petition, the court clarified that individual officers remain free to challenge their transfer orders.