The Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu cognisance of the Malda gherao, where seven judicial officers on electoral duty were held hostage for hours, calling West Bengal “the most politically polarised state.” Terming the incident a calculated attempt to intimidate officials and disrupt elections, the Court slammed the state’s “abdication of duty” and issued notices to top Bengal officials.
On Thursday, April 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of India condemned the West Bengal government over a shocking incident that took place in Malda district. On Wednesday, April 1, 2026, judicial officers deployed for electoral duties in the region were gheraoed and held hostage for several hours. The Court expressed strong displeasure over the incident and described West Bengal as “the most politically polarised state.”
Following the incident, a letter was sent by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to the Chief Justice of India detailing the incident. The matter was taken up suo motu by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vipul Pancholi, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The letter explained how seven judicial officers, including three women, were surrounded by a mob while carrying out Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duties related to electoral rolls in a village in Malda.
The Court noted that the gherao began around 3:30 pm and the officers remained trapped until midnight. Despite repeated alerts and communication from the Calcutta High Court, district authorities failed to respond promptly. The situation escalated to such an extent that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court had to personally intervene and contact senior state officials, including the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary, to ensure their safe release.
The Court further noted that even after their evacuation late at night, the officers faced stone-pelting and attacks with bamboo sticks. The Supreme Court termed the incident “deplorable” and a “calculated and motivated attempt” to intimidate judicial officers and disrupt the ongoing electoral process. It also described the state administration’s response as an “abdication of duty,” pointing to a serious breakdown of law and order.
Taking a stern view, the Court issued show-cause notices to top state officials, including the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, district magistrates, and police authorities, asking them to explain why timely action was not taken. The officials have been directed to appear before the Court and submit compliance reports.
To ensure the safety of judicial officers, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to deploy central armed forces at all locations where SIR-related work is being carried out. The Court also allowed the ECI to entrust the investigation of the incident to an independent central agency such as the CBI or NIA. “We also direct ECI to entrust the enquiry/investigation into yesterday's incident to either the CBI or NIA. The compliance report shall be submitted to this court.” Additional directions were issued to regulate crowd movement at such sites and to ensure that only a limited number of people are allowed during proceedings.
Tensions escalated during the hearing when West Bengal Advocate General Kishore Datta argued that the ECI should not act like an adversary. In response, CJI Surya Kant sharply remarked that political considerations appeared to dominate governance in the state, adding that the Court had been closely monitoring developments late into the night.
“Unfortunately, in your state, each one of you speaks political language. That is the most unfortunate thing. We have never seen such a polarised state. Even in compliance with court orders, politics is reflected… Do you think we are not aware of who the miscreants are? I was monitoring everything till 2 am. Very unfortunate,” CJI Surya Kant said.
Senior advocates appearing in the matter presented differing views. Senior Advocate Meneka Guruswamy submitted that the protest was apolitical and not politically motivated. However, the Court questioned this claim, asking that if the protest was apolitical, “what were the political leaders doing? Was it not their duty to get to the spot?”
The incident occurred amid ongoing protests in Malda over the deletion of names from electoral rolls during the SIR process. Demonstrations began outside a Block Development Office and escalated into a large gathering that eventually surrounded the officials. Road blockades were reported in multiple areas, disrupting normal life.
The Supreme Court emphasised that such incidents pose a serious threat to the rule of law and warned that it would not tolerate any attempts to intimidate officials performing judicial or electoral duties. It also urged leaders across political parties to avoid politicising the issue and instead ensure the safety and dignity of public officials.
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store