Calcutta HC Dismisses Trinamool Plea on Central Staff for Counting Duty

A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna Rao, which had reserved its order earlier in the day after hearing arguments from both sides, pronounced the verdict in the evening, rejecting the petition in its entirety.

"It is the prerogative of the Election Commission of India 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," the court observed.

The High Court further noted that the impugned communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, was aimed at ensuring "transparency, integrity and orderly conduct of counting proceedings" and formed part of the ongoing electoral process.

The bench observed 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. The court ruled that the ECI's decision to prefer Central government/Central PSU employees was well within its authority.

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 court held that such apprehension was not sustainable.

It pointed out 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.

The court further observed that if any irregularity or favouritism occurs during the counting process, the Trinamool Congress retains the right to challenge it through an election petition after the declaration of results.

Citing Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the judgment stated: "If the petitioner proves that the Central Government/Central PSU employees appointed as counting supervisors and counting assistants helped the opponent by manipulating votes during counting, the petitioner has the liberty to raise all such grounds in an election petition."

The writ petition had challenged a communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, which required that "at least one among the counting supervisor and counting assistant at each counting table shall be a Central Government/Central PSU employee."

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the impugned directive lacked jurisdiction and deviated from the Election Commission's own handbook, which does not mandate Central government personnel for such roles.

It was further contended that while micro-observers are required to be Central government/PSU employees, extending this requirement to counting supervisors and assistants was arbitrary and specific to West Bengal.

- IANS