SC to hear TMC plea challenging Calcutta High Court order on ECI’s appointment of Central staff for West Bengal election counting, raising concerns over transparency, neutrality, and legal authority in electoral processes.
A legal confrontation over election procedures in West Bengal is poised to reach a critical stage as the Supreme Court of India prepares to hear a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress challenging a recent order of the Calcutta High Court. The matter revolves around the appointment of Central government and Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors and assistants for the state’s Assembly elections.
According to the official cause list, the case is scheduled to be heard on Saturday by a bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi. The ruling party in West Bengal has sought urgent intervention following the High Court’s dismissal of its earlier plea opposing the Election Commission’s directive.
Sources indicate that TMC’s legal representatives approached Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, requesting the constitution of a special bench to expedite the hearing. The urgency stems from the proximity of the election counting process and concerns raised by the party regarding the neutrality of personnel involved.
The controversy began after the Election Commission of India decided that counting supervisors and assistants could be drawn not only from state government staff but also from Central government and PSU employees. The decision was formalized through a communication issued by West Bengal’s Additional Chief Electoral Officer, Vibhu Goel.
A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna Rao had earlier reserved judgment on the matter and later ruled in favor of the Election Commission. The court held that the Commission’s decision fell within its constitutional mandate and did not violate any legal provisions.
In its judgment, the High Court emphasized that the authority to appoint counting personnel lies solely with the Election Commission and that there was no illegality in choosing Central government or PSU employees over state government staff. The court also referred to Clause 15.7.9 of the handbook for Returning Officers, which explicitly allows for such appointments from either category of officials.
The court further stated that the directive aimed to enhance transparency, integrity, and the orderly conduct of the counting process. It noted that multiple layers of oversight exist during counting, including the presence of micro-observers, candidate agents, and other election officials.
Addressing the TMC’s concerns about potential bias, the High Court dismissed the argument as speculative. The party had argued that Central government employees, being under the administrative control of the Union government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, might favor the opposition during vote counting. However, the court found no substantive evidence to support this claim.
Importantly, the High Court clarified that any irregularities or misconduct during the counting process could be legally challenged after the declaration of results. Citing Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the court stated that affected parties retain the right to file an election petition if they can demonstrate that the counting process was compromised.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, representing the TMC, had argued that the Election Commission’s directive exceeded its jurisdiction and deviated from established guidelines. He contended that while micro-observers are typically drawn from Central government or PSU employees, extending this requirement to counting supervisors and assistants was arbitrary and lacked precedent.
The petition also challenged the specific requirement that at least one official at each counting table must be from a Central government or PSU background, arguing that this condition was uniquely imposed in West Bengal and not uniformly applied across other states.
| Also Read: Re-poll in Bengal booths raises concerns over election transparency |
With the Supreme Court now set to examine the matter, the case is expected to have broader implications for election administration and the interpretation of the Election Commission’s powers. The outcome could influence how counting personnel are appointed in future elections, particularly in politically sensitive states.
As the hearing unfolds, all eyes will be on the apex court’s interpretation of electoral fairness, administrative discretion, and the balance between state and central oversight in democratic processes.
