Bengal Polls : Supreme Court's Special Sitting Tomorrow For Trinamool Congress Plea Against ECI's Decision On Counting Officers

The Supreme Court will hear tomorrow (Saturday) the plea filed by All India Trinamool Congress against appointment of Central Government and Central PSU employees as counting supervisors and assistants for the West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026.

A special bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has been constituted to hear the plea urgently on a Saturday, as the vote counting for the elections will begin at 8 AM on Monday, May 4th.

AITC has challenged yesterday's order of the Calcutta High Court dismissing an application filed by the party against a communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal providing, “at least one among the Counting Supervisor and Counting Assistant at each table shall be a Central Government/ Central PSU employee.”

The impugned communication states that this direction is passed in view of apprehensions expressed by “various quarters” regarding possible irregularities in vote counting and to ensure transparency, integrity and orderly conduct.

The AITC has contended that appointing counting supervisors and assistants from Central Government and Central PSU employees, who are under the administrative control of the Central Government, creates a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The petition highlights that the Central Government is run by its political rival, the Bharatiya Janata Party, and such appointments undermine the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.

“Because the Petitioner is the main opponent to the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), which party admittedly runs and controls the Central Government. It is obvious and well known that the Central Government/Central PSU employees would be directly under control of the Central Government and are likely to be susceptible to the suggestion and control of persons in the BJP. Such direct control of BJP over the Central Government/Central PSU employees gives rise to an apparent risk of bias, influence, and partisan conduct during the process of counting of votes”, the plea states.

AITC has sought a stay of the High Court's April 30, 2026 judgment and the impugned communication dated April 13, 2026. In the alternative, it has sought a direction to deploy both Central and State Government employees as counting supervisors and assistants at each counting table. It has also sought a direction to preserve CCTV footage of all counting rooms during the pendency of the proceedings.

The petitioner has argued the impugned communication issued is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. It points out that similar elections were conducted in Assam, Kerala and Puducherry without such a requirement, and questions why the measure of mandating a central government employee at each counting table was applied only in West Bengal.

“the impugned communication is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court failed to address the crucial question of why this new procedure was being implemented solely in West Bengal and not in other states like Assam, Kerala, and Puducherry, where elections were conducted simultaneously. This selective and discriminatory application lacks any rational basis and is clearly aimed at prejudicing the Petitioner”, the plea states.

The plea also states that the communication is based on vague apprehensions of possible irregularities without disclosing any material, criteria, or methodology. It argues that the absence of transparency raises concerns about the objectivity and fairness of the decision.

The petition submits that the presence of micro-observers and CCTV cameras are not sufficient safeguards as these measures do not address the core concern arising from the composition of the counting staff.

Referring to Clause 9.1 of the ECI Handbook for Counting Agents, 2023, the petitioner states that the presence of Central Government or PSU employees is already ensured through micro-observers at each counting table. It argues that there is no requirement for counting supervisors or assistants to be drawn from the same pool, and the impugned direction results in disproportionate representation of Central personnel.

The petitioner has also contended that the Additional CEO lacked authority to issue the communication. It has contended that under Section 19A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, delegation of the powers of the Election Commission of India powers is limited to the Deputy Election Commissioner or Secretary to Election Commission and cannot extend to the Chief Electoral Officer.

It further submits that the subject falls within the constitutional domain of Article 324, which provides that any policy decision during an ongoing election can be taken exclusively by the ECI which comprises of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. It contends that the communication does not disclose any source of power or approval of the ECI.

The plea highlights that no consultative exercise was undertaken before issuing the direction and recognised political parties were not given any opportunity for representation. It also states that the communication was not made public and was issued only to District Election Officers. According to the petitioner, it became aware of the direction only yesterday, and challenged it before the High Court today.

The petition highlights that the voter turnout was approximately 92.7% across two phases in the ongoing elections and by the ECI's own admission, the elections have been free and fair without major incidents of violence. It contends that in such circumstances, the basis for issuing the impugned communication is unclear.

It further alleges that the large presence of Central Government personnel at counting tables may create an atmosphere of fear, intimidation and coercion, affecting the neutrality of the counting process.

On the issue of maintainability, the party has argued that the High Court misinterpreted the scope of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference in ongoing elections. It has submitted that the constitutional bar does not oust the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 to examine the legality of executive action during an ongoing election, particularly where such action is arbitrary, mala fide, and affects the level playing field.

The petition states that constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene where there is unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb electoral fairness.

The plea also challenges the High Court's reasoning that it could not adjudicate the issue since the Supreme Court had kept the question of law open in an earlier case. According to the petitioner, keeping a question of law open does not bar a High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, and the finding amounts to an abdication of judicial function.

The AITC has also challenged the High Court's finding that an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is an efficacious remedy. It submits that an election petition is a post-facto remedy and cannot prevent an allegedly flawed counting process.

The petition has sought urgent intervention, pointing out that counting of votes is scheduled for May 4, 2026. It states that unless relief is granted, there is a risk that the counting process will not be conducted in a free and fair manner.

The petition is filed through AoR Sanchit Garga.

Case no. – Diary No. - 26799/2026

Case Title – All India Trinamool Congress v. Election Commission of India