Trinamool Moves Supreme Court Against ECI Counting Directive, Hearing Tomorrow

As per the cause list published on the official website of the apex court, the fresh petition filed by the ruling party from West Bengal will be taken up for hearing on Saturday by a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi.

The TMC's legal team is understood to have approached the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant seeking the constitution of a Special bench for urgent listing of the matter.

The move comes a day after the Calcutta High Court rejected TMC's writ petition in its entirety and upheld the ECI's authority to appoint counting personnel from Central government and PSU establishments.

A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna Rao had reserved the matter earlier on Thursday after hearing the parties and later pronounced the judgment in the evening.

"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," the Calcutta High Court had said.

It also added that the impugned communication issued by the West Bengal Additional Chief Electoral Officer, Vibhu Goel, was aimed at ensuring "transparency, integrity and orderly conduct of counting proceedings" and formed part of the ongoing electoral process.

Justice Rao said 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 judge 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 Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union government, could favour the principal opposition party in the state, the Calcutta High Court held that such 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.

The Calcutta High Court also noted that if any irregularity or favouritism occurs during the counting process, the TMC 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 High Court judgment said: "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 West Bengal Additional Chief Electoral Officer, 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, said 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