West Bengal polls a stress test for India’s federalism

The Election Commission’s actions in West Bengal raise troubling questions about constitutional overreach and the future of India’s federal balance

India, that is Hindustan (which included Pakistan and Bangladesh before 1947), has seen three broad forms of political governance over the last 500 years: unitary, feudal, and federal.

India’s federal constitution — a union of States with separate powers for the Centre and the States, guaranteed by powerful federal institutions such as the Supreme Court of India and the Election Commission of India (ECI) — is being tested for the second time since Emergency. It appears that the ECI has adopted an openly hostile posture, attempting to render incumbent Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee a lame duck by ordering wholesale transfers of officers holding key positions in West Bengal.

Is the ECI acting constitutionally? Is India’s federal polity under an existential attack? What is the impact of the electoral verdict in West Bengal?

Delhi always wants to control West Bengal

Historically, the political relationship between Delhi (the seat of Central power) and Bengal (the richest province/suba) was unitary under the Mughals, with sultanate-appointed governors administering Bengal and collecting revenues for it under Delhi’s command and control.

After Aurangzeb died in 1707, India descended into a feudal Hindustan for the next 150 years, with hundreds of kingdoms sprouting all over, and Bengal governors becoming de facto rulers (nawabs), reducing their ties with the Mughal emperor to a nominal relationship.

The defeat of Bengal’s feudal nawabs by the East India Company in 1757 set into motion India’s gradual transformation into a polity with substantial federal features under the Government of India Act of 1935. Bengal became its most important province, with a democratically elected government and independent powers.

The Indian Constitution of 1950 established India — that is Bharat — as a true federal polity, with sub-sovereign states exercising significant powers enumerated in the State List. Since then, West Bengal has been ruled by powerful, democratically elected Chief Ministers, for a great part by political parties opposed to the ruling party in power at the Centre.

Today, the Central leadership and Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) appear determined to oust the Trinamool Congress (TMC) from power at all costs, aided by the ECI’s actions to subjugate West Bengal.

ECI acting unconstitutionally

Article 324 of the Constitution vests the "superintendence, direction and control of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State" in the ECI. However, this power does not authorise the ECI to substitute a State government or take over its administration.

The Representation of the People Act (RPA 1950) empowers the ECI to designate or nominate State chief electoral officers (CEOs) under Section 13A, district election officers (DEOs) under Section 13AA, and electoral registration officers (EROs) under Section 13B, but only in consultation with the State government. It does not empower unilateral appointments or transfers.

Section 13CC of the RPA places CEO, DEOs, EROs, and "any other officer or staff employed in connection with the preparation, revision and correction of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, elections" on deemed deputation to the ECI during the election period, which begins only after the notification of elections under Section 15 (2) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (RPA 1951).

The ECI, especially Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, has, through his partisan conduct, appeared to be unabashedly serving the interests of the BJP. This has prompted about 200 Opposition MPs, led by the TMC, to submit a motion in Parliament seeking his removal.

Yet, within hours of announcing elections, the ECI ordered transfers of the Chief Secretary, the DGP, and other key administrative officers — many unrelated to election duties — without consulting the State government. Officers were shunted out, others appointed, and many dispatched to other States as observers. These actions by the ECI are widely seen as vindictive, unconstitutional, and illegal. Although the Supreme Court has held that the ECI can transfer if a case is made out that it is necessary to do so for holding free and fair elections, no such case has been made.

How bad can it be?

Further, the ECI and the Union government have taken other actions to make Banerjee functus officio. R N Ravi, a known critic of non-BJP Chief Ministers, has been appointed West Bengal Governor, and 2,000 companies of Central armed police forces (CAPFs) are being deployed. The ‘Delhi Sultanate’ is leaving no stone unturned to ‘occupy and win’ West Bengal.

Banerjee has approached the Calcutta High Court, though relief appears unlikely during the election process.

The entire ‘Operation West Bengal’ carries enormous ramifications for India’s federal polity and the neutrality of federal institutions.

It is quite possible that, by commandeering the election and administrative machinery, the ECI may succeed in delivering West Bengal to the BJP. If that happens, this template could become the modus operandi for future elections in other Opposition-ruled States.

It is also possible and perhaps quite likely that the TMC triumphs despite the massive onslaught. In that scenario, even more aggressive experiments cannot be ruled out, such as posting officers from BJP-ruled States into key administrative positions in other Opposition-ruled States.

That would be a dangerous precedent. India’s federal structure and constitutional balance are at grave risk. Federal forces must regroup and fight harder to restore India’s federal institutions to normalcy and good health.

Subhash Chandra Garg is former Finance & Economic Affairs Secretary, and author of ‘The Ten Trillion Dream Dented’, ‘Commentary on Budget 2025-2026’, and ‘We Also Make Policy’.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)