Back
Calcutta HC Shoots Down TMC's Fears: Central Staff Okay for Vote Counting
In a swift dismissal ahead of West Bengal's vote counting, the rejected the 's challenging a directive mandating at least one Central Government or PSU employee per counting table. Justice Krishna Rao ruled on , upholding the Election Commission of India's (ECI) framework, emphasizing transparency and dismissing allegations of bias toward the .
From Polling Booths to Courtroom: The Spark of Dispute
The controversy erupted over a communication dated
, from West Bengal's Additional Chief Electoral Officer, specifying that
"at least one among the counting supervisor and counting assistant at each counting table shall be a Central Government/Central PSU employee."
TMC filed WPA 10488 of 2026 just before the
, counting date for assembly elections in West Bengal, Assam, Kerala, and Puducherry—claiming the rule applied only in West Bengal, unlike other states.
TMC argued this favored the
-led Centre, with counting staff potentially manipulable. Respondents, including ECI and state officials, defended it as a measure for
"
,"
backed by CCTV surveillance and micro-observers (already Central employees).
TMC's Apprehensions vs. ECI's Safeguards: The Clash Unfolds
Petitioner's Pitch: assailed the directive as , issued on mere "apprehension" without ECI mandate. Citing the ( ), he noted no requirement for Central staff in supervisors/assistants—micro-observers suffice. He invoked , precedents like Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (2024) 18 SCC 643 for , and a recent in .
Respondents' Rebuttal: ECI's counsel, including , called the plea speculative, lacking evidence of prejudice. They leaned on barring , A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 218 against stalling polls, and (1950/51 Acts) for delegation to state officers. A prior dismissal in Arka Kumar Nag 's PIL (WPA(P) 141/2026), affirmed by (SLP 12775/2026, question open), was highlighted. remedies via election petitions, not writs, were stressed.
Unpacking the Verdict: Prerogatives, Precedents, and Practical Checks
Justice Rao dissected the Handbook ( ), allowing "preferably Gazetted Officers" from Central/State, deeming Central appointments a valid "prerogative" of ECI. Delegation under validated the Additional CEO's order. TMC's bias claim was rebuffed: micro-observers (Central staff), counting agents, and CCTV ensure checks. Precedents like Union of India v. Kanwaljit Deol (2024 SCC OnLine 805) barred revisiting -'kept open' issues.
The court noted TMC's last-minute filing (post-holidays, pre-counting) smacked of delay tactics, redirecting grievances to post-poll election petitions under .
Court's Razor-Sharp Observations
"Thus, it is impossible to believe the allegation made by the petitioner."
"It is theto appoint the counting supervisor and counting assistant either from the State Government or the Central Government. This Court does not find any illegality..."
"If the petitioner proves that the Central Government/Central PSU employees appointed as counting supervisor and counting assistants, helped the opponent of the petitioner by manipulating votes while counting the same, the petitioner has the liberty to take all the points in the."
These quotes, echoing reports from legal circles, underscore the bench's no-nonsense stance on unsubstantiated fears.
No Relief, But Polls Proceed: Ripple Effects Ahead
WPA 10488 of 2026 dismissed. No interference in counting; TMC urged to pursue election petitions if irregularities surface. This reinforces ECI's flexibility in staffing for integrity, signaling courts' restraint in ongoing polls per . Future challenges may test on 'kept open' issues, but for now, West Bengal's May 4 count goes ahead under multi-layered oversight.
