WB Polls: If Both State & Centre Employees Can Be Appointed As Counting Supervisors, Why Are State Employees Excluded? Calcutta HC Asks ECI

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday (April 30) questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its decision to mandate the deployment of central government and public sector undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors in the ongoing West Bengal Assembly Elections 2026, asking pointedly: if both central and state government officials are legally eligible, why are state employees being excluded?

The query came up during the hearing of a plea challenging a memo issued by the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), which requires that at least one official at every counting table be a central government employee. The petitioner argued that such a mandate lacks statutory backing under the Representation of the People Act, which refers to the Chief Election Commissioner—not the CEO—as the competent authority.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the directive effectively alters the established election framework at the final stage. He argued that while central or PSU officials may serve as micro-observers, there is no provision permitting their appointment as counting supervisors or assistants. Questioning the rationale behind the move, he pointed out that the entire electoral process—from polling to administration—had been conducted using state government machinery, including Returning Officers (ROs) and Assistant Returning Officers (AROs).

Referring to the CEO's memo citing “apprehensions from various quarters,” Bandopadhyay questioned the lack of transparency: “Who are these quarters? Why are these apprehensions not disclosed?”

Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over the matter, also raised concerns about the selective deployment. “If both state and central employees are permissible, why not appoint state officials? Why this insistence?” the Court asked.

In response, Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, appearing for the CEO, relied on the Returning Officers' Handbook, which provides that counting supervisors should be gazetted officers of either the state or central government. He argued that the appointments were made within this framework and fall squarely within the domain of the ECI.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, defended the decision, asserting that the plea was based on unfounded presumptions that central government employees would act in a partisan manner. He emphasized that there is a presumption of bona fides in favour of constitutional authorities like the ECI, and absent concrete evidence, judicial interference would be unwarranted—especially at a stage so close to counting.

Naidu further submitted that the Supreme Court had earlier declined to interfere in a related issue, leaving questions of law open. However, the Court pressed on this point, asking who would adjudicate such open questions if not the High Court.

The ECI also cautioned against judicial intervention that could delay the counting process and formation of government, stressing that election-related grievances should be addressed through election petitions after the process concludes.

Case: JAVED AHMED KHAN VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS

Case No: WPA/10464/2026