No Illegality In Appointing Only Central Govt Or PSU Employees As Counting Supervisors For West Bengal Polls : Calcutta High Court
The High Court was hearing an application filed by the All India Trinamool Congress.
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) challenging the exclusion of State government or state PSU employees from being appointed as counting supervisors or counting assistants for the ongoing West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026.
"It is the prerogative of the office of the Election Commission of India to appoint the counting supervisor and counting assistant either from the State Government or the Central Government. This Court does not find any illegality for appointing counting supervisor and counting assistant from the Central Government/Central PSU employee instead of State Government employee," the Court stated.
Justice Krishna Rao observed thus in a plea challenging the appointment of only central government, or central PSU employees as counting supervisors in the state.
The court further held that in case any wrongdoing as alleged in the petition was established, the petitioners would be free to file an election petition.
The writ petition was filed by the All India Trinamool Congress challenging 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 unique to West Bengal.
The petitioner also raised concerns of potential bias, alleging that since the Central Government is controlled by the Bharatiya Janata Party, Central employees may be susceptible to influence, thereby disturbing the level playing field.
Senior Advocates Dama Seshadri Naidu and Jishnu Chowdhury, appearing for the Election Commission and Chief Electoral Officer, respectively, opposed the plea, arguing that the petition was based purely on apprehension without evidence of prejudice, and the direction was issued to ensure transparency and integrity in the counting process.
It was argued that under Article 329 of the Constitution, courts should not interfere in electoral processes once underway, and any irregularity in counting can be challenged later through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Court's Observations
Justice Krishna Rao noted that the Election Commission's handbook allows counting supervisors and assistants to be drawn from either Central or State Government services. The Court emphasized:
“This is the prerogative of the authorities to either appoint from the Central Government or the State Government.”
Rejecting the apprehension of bias, the Court observed that multiple stakeholders—including micro-observers (who are already Central Government employees), counting agents of candidates, and CCTV surveillance—ensure transparency in the counting process. “It is impossible to believe the allegation made by the petitioner.”
On jurisdiction, the Court held that statutory provisions permit delegation of the Election Commission's functions, and therefore the Additional Chief Electoral Officer was competent to issue the impugned communication.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that constitutional courts should exercise restraint during the election process.
It was stated that any grievance regarding counting irregularities can be raised in an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Court also noted that similar challenges had previously been rejected, and the Supreme Court had kept the question of law open, thereby discouraging fresh adjudication at this stage.
Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the Election Commission's decision, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that mere apprehension of bias, without substantive evidence, cannot justify judicial interference in an ongoing electoral process.
Case: All India Trinamool Congress Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors
Case No: WPA 10488 of 2026