NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court expressed strong disappointment on Thursday over the West Bengal administration's failure to respond appropriately to the gherao of seven judicial officers in Malda district. The incident, which occurred during an electoral rolls revision drive, was described by the court as a “brazen attempt” to undermine judicial authority, highlighting the state as the “most polarised state” in India.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked on the "deplorable" circumstances faced by the judicial officers—who were held captive for over nine hours by anti-social elements—without food or water. The court took suo motu cognizance of a letter from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, which provided a harrowing account of the events. “This was not apolitical protest,” the CJI stated firmly. “It was a calculated move to demoralise the officers and challenge the authority of this Supreme Court.”

In response to the incident, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India to deploy adequate central forces and mandated a thorough investigation by either the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The court's orders were clear: a compliance report must be submitted to ensure the safety and security of the judicial officers amid this threatening environment.

The court was particularly critical of the chief secretary, saying it was “extremely disappointing” that he could not be contacted during the crisis. Chief Justice Kant emphasized the need for accountability among state officials, mandating that the chief secretary, the Director General of Police, and local administrative heads appear before the court to explain their inaction.

Additionally, the Supreme Court warned against such “mobocracy,” stressing that the integrity and morale of judicial officers must be protected, especially in light of the ongoing Special Summary Revision (SIR) exercise. With over 700 judicial officers from West Bengal, Odisha, and Jharkhand currently involved, the court's interventions aim to ensure that the election process remains unaffected and that those in authority uphold the rule of law.