“No Further Orders Necessary”: Supreme Court Closes TMC Plea On Centre-Appointed Counting Officers In Bengal Elections

In Trinamool Congress' plea challenging ECI's appointment of Central employees in West Bengal elections' counting process, the Supreme Court today observed that the ECI Circular, which also provides for a state government nominee, shall be followed in letter and spirit.

"No further orders are necessary except to reiterate the statement of Mr. Naidu (for ECI) that the circular dated April 13th 2026 will be implemented in letter and spirit" the Court said.

A special bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, while dealing with a 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.

Notably, the bench was constituted today for an urgent hearing, as the vote counting for the elections will begin at 8 AM on Monday, May 4.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for AITC, raised 4 issues - (i) the Circular appointing Central employees was issued to DEOs on April 13, but came to knowledge only on April 29 (ii) ECI says it has apprehension of irregularity at every booth (iii) ECI already has a central government nominee at each counting table (in form of micro observer) and (iv) ECI did not appoint state govt nominee even though the Circular provides for one.

"CEO's communication says that there are apprehensions expressed from various quarters regarding possible irregularities in counting...They want another central govt nominee because they fear possible irregularities. That is pointing a finger at the state government..." Sibal urged. "There must be some data. Where is the apprehension from each booth? They have not disclosed this. And why not tell us that there going to have a central government nominee?" the senior counsel questioned.

Hearing Sibal, Justice Bagchi said even if the Circular had provided for appointment of Central employees as both counting supervisor and counting assistant, the Court could not have faulted the decision.

"The option is open that the counting supervisor and counting assistant may be of the central government or may be of the state government. So when that option is open we can't hold that the notification is contrary to regulations. They can even say that both of them can be Central. Even if they had said that we could not have faulted them. Because regulation say that either Central Government or state government officers can be appointed", said Justice Bagchi.

Subsequently, Sibal pressed that the ECI be asked to follow the impugned Circular, which provides for a state government nominee. "All we want is, in terms of the Circular, the state government nominee should be there", he said.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for ECI and contended that the returning officer has overarching power and he is from the state government cadre. "Each candidate will I also have their own counting agent. It is a completely misplaced apprehension", he urged.

Ultimately, the bench was of the view that no interference was warranted, except to reiterate that ECI's circular should be followed in letter and spirit.

What did AITC's petition say?

AITC approached the Court challenging the Calcutta High Court order which dismissed an application filed by it 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 stated that the direction was being passed in view of apprehensions expressed by “various quarters” regarding possible irregularities in vote counting and to ensure transparency, integrity and orderly conduct.

Against this, the AITC contended that appointing counting supervisors and assistants from Central Government and Central PSU employees, who are under the administrative control of the Central Government, created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The petition highlighted that the Central Government is run by AITC's political rival, the Bharatiya Janata Party, and such appointments undermined the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.

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

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

AITC submitted that the presence of micro-observers and CCTV cameras were not sufficient safeguards as these measures did 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 stated that the presence of Central Government or PSU employees was already ensured through micro-observers at each counting table. It argued that there was no requirement for counting supervisors or assistants to be drawn from the same pool, and the impugned direction resulted in disproportionate representation of Central personnel.

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

The plea further highlighted that no consultative exercise was undertaken before issuing the direction and recognized political parties were not given any opportunity for representation. It also stated that the communication was not made public and was issued only to District Election Officers.

On the issue of maintainability, the party argued that the High Court misinterpreted the scope of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference in ongoing elections. It 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 plea also challenged 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.

The AITC also challenged the High Court's finding that an election petition under Section 100 of the RP Act is an efficacious remedy. It submitted 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.

Case Title – All India Trinamool Congress v. Election Commission of India, Diary No. - 26799/2026