New Delhi: In a special Saturday sitting ahead of the May 4 vote count for the West Bengal Assembly elections, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to appoint Central government and Central Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors and assistants, while directing that the poll panel’s own circular providing for state government nominees must be followed “in letter and spirit.”
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the All India Trinamool Congress challenging a Calcutta High Court order that had dismissed its petition against the ECI’s counting personnel deployment framework.
Recording the assurance given by senior advocate Dama Naidu, appearing for the ECI, the apex court disposed of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) without issuing further directions.
“No further orders are needed in the SLP. We record the submission of Mr Naidu that the circular of ECI be followed in letter and spirit,” the Justice Narasimha-led Bench ordered.
Naidu submitted that vote counting May 4 would take place in the presence of the state government nominee as contemplated under the ECI’s circular.
“We are saying that the state government nominee will be there. That will be followed even before all this,” he assured the top court.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Trinamool, argued that the ECI’s decision to predominantly deploy Central employees for counting supervision cast unwarranted aspersions on the state administration and was contrary to Article 324 of the Constitution as well as the poll panel’s own circular.
“This circular is issued to the DEO and we came to know April 29. On the contrary advance notice is given. They say they have an apprehension that there will be a problem in every single booth. There is one central government nominee and now they want one more. Circular says state government nominee is needed but they don’t appoint it,” Sibal submitted.
At this, Justice Bagchi remarked that the ECI retained discretion under the regulatory framework to appoint either Central or State government officers for counting roles.
“The option is open that the counting supervisor and counting assistant may be of the Central government or may be of the state government. So when that option is open we can’t hold that the notification is contrary to regulations,” Justice Bagchi remarked.
Justice Narasimha also questioned the basis of the Trinamool’s apprehensions, stating that counting would take place in the presence of all candidates’ counting agents and multiple officials, including micro-observers.
“What is this proportionate representation concept? All of them are employees of the government,” Justice Narasimha said.
When Sibal pressed for strict adherence to the circular, the Supreme Court reiterated that compliance with the ECI’s own framework was sufficient safeguard.
“Make sure what is there in the circular is followed,” the Justice Narasimha-led Bench directed.
The matter reached the apex court after the Trinamool urgently approached it against the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to quash the ECI’s deployment order.
The Calcutta High Court had upheld the poll body’s authority, holding that the regulatory framework did not prohibit the appointment of Central personnel and that the decision fell within the ECI’s supervisory powers.
“It is the prerogative of the ECI to appoint counting supervisors and counting assistants either from the state government or the Central government. This Court does not find any illegality in appointing counting supervisors and counting assistants from Central government/Central PSU employees instead of state government employees,” a single-judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao had said.
The judge added that Clause 15.7.9 of the handbook for Returning Officers permits counting supervisors and assistants to be appointed from either Central or state government officials or comparable undertakings.
Addressing the Trinamool Congress’ primary contention that Central government employees, being under the administrative control of the BJP-led Union government, could favour the principal Opposition party in the state, the Calcutta High Court held that such an apprehension was not sustainable.
It said that micro-observers, who are invariably drawn from Central government/Central PSU employees, would also be present at every counting table, along with counting agents of candidates and other officials, thereby ensuring adequate checks and balances.
