Bombay High Court Upholds Mid-Term Transfers of Police Personnel as Valid Beyond Elections Under ECI Directives: Confirms Validity Under Section 22-N(2) of Maharashtra Police Act and Reaffirms Binding Nature of ECI Instructions

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court held that mid-term transfer orders issued to 73 police officers under Section 22-N(2) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, in compliance with directives from the Election Commission of India (ECI), are not temporary in nature. The court quashed the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which had deemed these transfers to be temporary and valid only for the duration of elections. Instead, the High Court confirmed that such transfers remain valid even after the election process concludes.

Facts of the Case

1. ECI Directive:
   • On December 21, 2023, the ECI issued a circular instructing that officers directly involved in elections should not remain posted in their home districts or the same district for over three years in the last four years (as of June 30, 2024).
   • This directive aimed to ensure fairness and impartiality in the conduct of elections.
2. Transfer Orders:
   • Acting on this circular, the Additional Director General of Police, Maharashtra, issued transfer orders on February 26, 2024, affecting 73 police personnel. These orders were justified as being issued in “public interest” and due to “administrative exigencies.”
3. Challenge Before Tribunal:
   • Aggrieved by these transfers, the police personnel approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, arguing that the transfers lacked validity after the election process was concluded.
   • The Tribunal held that these transfers were temporary in nature and valid only until the conclusion of the elections, treating the officers’ placement as a “deemed deputation” during the election period.
4. Appeal to High Court:
   • The State of Maharashtra challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the transfers were valid under the Maharashtra Police Act and were not restricted to the election period.

Issues

1. Are mid-term transfer orders issued under Section 22-N(2) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, valid beyond the election process?
2. Did the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal err in treating the transfers as temporary “deemed deputations”?

Petitioner’s (State of Maharashtra) Arguments

1. Public Interest and Administrative Exigencies:
   • The Advocate General argued that the transfers were executed in compliance with the binding directive of the ECI, which holds plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to ensure free and fair elections.
   • The transfers were validly made in public interest and were not limited to the election period.
2. Binding Precedent:
   • The petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Mahendra Eknath Mali v. State of Maharashtra (2018), where a similar transfer order was upheld.
   • In that case, the court had clarified that such transfers were not temporary and did not result in “deemed deputations.”
3. Compliance with Section 22-N(2):
   • The transfer orders were issued as per Section 22-N(2) of the Maharashtra Police Act, which allows mid-term transfers in exceptional cases of public interest or administrative exigency.
4. ECI’s Binding Directives:
   • The directives issued under Article 324 were mandatory, and the state was obligated to comply with them.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Temporary Nature of Transfers:
   • The respondents argued that the transfers were directly tied to the election process and should end with its conclusion.
   • They relied on the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Election Commission of India v. State of Karnataka (2013), which held that officers transferred for election duties must return to their original postings after the elections.
2. Lack of Exceptional Circumstances:
   • The respondents contended that the transfer orders did not meet the “exceptional case” criteria under Section 22-N(2) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
   • The orders failed to establish any public interest or administrative exigency beyond the election directives.
3. Deemed Deputation:
   • The respondents maintained that their placement during the election period should be treated as a temporary deputation under the ECI’s directives.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 22-N(2) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951:
   • This provision allows mid-term transfers in cases of public interest or administrative exigency.
   • The court held that the transfer orders met this requirement as they were issued to ensure free and fair elections, a matter of public interest.
2. Article 324 of the Constitution:
   • Article 324 grants the ECI plenary powers to supervise, direct, and control elections.
   • The court emphasized that ECI’s directives are binding on state authorities, and compliance with such directives constitutes valid grounds for transfer orders.
3. Precedent from Mahendra Eknath Mali (2018):
   • The Bombay High Court previously upheld similar transfer orders as valid beyond elections, rejecting the argument of deemed deputation.
   • The court distinguished this case from the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Election Commission of India v. State of Karnataka (2013), noting that the Maharashtra context had additional procedural safeguards under its laws.

Precedent Analysis

1. Mahendra Eknath Mali v. State of Maharashtra (2018):
   • Held that transfers under election directives are not temporary deputations.
   • Clarified that such orders remain valid beyond the election period.
2. Election Commission of India v. State of Karnataka (2013):
   • Relied upon by respondents but distinguished by the court as non-applicable in the Maharashtra context.
   • Maharashtra’s legislative framework under the Police Act provided additional validity to the transfer orders.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Validity Beyond Elections:
   • The court rejected the argument that the transfers were temporary or valid only during elections, stating there was no such limitation in the transfer orders.
2. Tribunal’s Error:
   • The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred by not applying the binding precedent of Mahendra Eknath Mali.
   • Instead, it incorrectly relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision, which was not binding.
3. Binding Nature of ECI Directives:
   • The court reaffirmed the ECI’s authority under Article 324 and held that compliance with its directives constituted a valid public interest under Section 22-N(2).

Conclusion

• The High Court quashed the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s judgment and upheld the transfer orders as valid.
• It directed the Home Department to consider officers’ requests for postings at vacant positions in accordance with the law.

Implications

1. Reinforcement of ECI’s Authority:
   • The judgment affirms the binding nature of ECI directives and their role in ensuring impartial elections.
2. Scope of Transfer Powers:
   • Clarifies that mid-term transfers under Section 22-N(2) are not limited to election duties and remain valid in broader public interest contexts.
3. Guidance for Future Cases:
   • Provides a clear precedent for handling similar disputes over mid-term transfers during elections.

Also Read – Supreme Court Grants Regular Pay-Scale to Temporary Employees After Three Years of Service: Sets Aside Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench Ruling, Holds Government Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Benefits Granted Under 1984 Circular