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) heard a plea against the deployment of only central government and public sector undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors for the ongoing West Bengal Assembly elections 2026

The plea challenges a memo issued yesterday by the Chief Electoral Officer mandating that at least one person at every counting table must be a central government employee.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to the Representation of People Act, and argued that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Chief Electoral Officer to make such a mandate when there is no mention of CEO, but only of CEC (Chief Election Commissioner) in the Act.

He pointed out that persons who are unconnected to the election process were being brought in at the counting stage. The senior counsel asked why central government employees are being brought in when the entire election was conducted with the assistance of state government employees, including Returning Officers (ROs) and Assistant Returning Officers (ARO).

"There is already a provision for micro observers who are PSU or central employees. That is accepted...But there is no scope for central employees to be brought as counting supervisor or counting assistant. Only micro observer," he added.

Reading out the memo, which mentioned that “In view of apprehension expressed from various quarters…over irregularity”, the senior counsel asked:

"Are these connected to a political party? Why have no disclosed that they apprehended irregularity?"

Justice Krishna Rao asked, "How you are affected?...have they appointed any counting supervisors?"

The petitioner's counsel answered that the appointments were made without jurisdiction and asked whether such an action has been done in any State other than West Bengal.

Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, appearing for the CEO pointed out that the Returning Officers' Handbook details who should do counting and it is mentioned that counting supervisors should be gazetted officers of state or central government. He contended that all appointments were done accordingly.

He also argued that it is the domain of the ECI to decide who should be appointed and it cannot be argued that state government employees cannot be excluded.

"If there is an objection…can the ECI not sort it out? If state and centre employees are allowed, why not appoint state officials? He is not asking for something outside the law…why the adamancy by both parties?" the Court asked.

The senior counsel for the ECI answered that appointments have already been made for the counting scheduled on Monday and the sentiments of a political party should not insist on a judicial scrutiny of the wisdom of the ECI, especially since the action is not contrary to statute.

The ECI contended that the plea is baseless since it is entirely on the basis of a presumption that a central government employee would be forced to commit illegality in the electoral process by virtue of who their employer is:

"Their writ petition says that is likely that central employees would be under the control of the central government and thus, the BJP…which gives rise to partisan conduct during the counting of votes…the basis of the petition is that a central government employee would be directed to commit illegality in the electoral process by being virtue of being a central employee. These are the presumptions in the writ petition. All of this is not backed by any material. Their plea is based on presumptions...the state government employees are also government employees…the ECI have chose these people in their wisdom…there is no legal basis of this petition. There is also no factual basis. This is on a perceived notion of the world being against the petitioner."

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for ECI, submitted that such an issue was raised earlier and the Apex Court refused to interfere but left the questions open.

Hearing the same, the Court put forth a question, "If it says that the question of law is left open..who will consider it?...if the question of law is kept open then this Court or the Division Bench can decide."

Sr. Adv. Naidu replied that it is for the Supreme Court to consider the issue. He said that when the Apex Court refuses to consider it, the judgment becomes final and anytime a similar question comes, it is usual practice for the Apex Court to decide the same.

Court questioned: "If it is kept open…and it was dismissed by SC, how can it be left open for the SC to decide?...If we are unable to pass an order because it is pending before the SC the what will this court do?"

Answering, Sr. Adv. Naidu said: "SC said it didn't deem it fit to interfere with the DB order, and thus the DB judgment stays...When SC had kept a point open it is for itself to consider in a later case. It is not for the HC to decide."

He then submitted that, as per the RP Act, there are sweeping powers on the ECI and if there is any grievance that the ECI has not complied with the statute, an election dispute can be raised. He further contended that the petitioner is feigning ignorance that it was not aware of the appointments and raising an issue now would delay the counting process.

Adding to this, Sr. Adv. Chowdhry submitted that the High Court must observe a self-limitation on itself and not pass orders, which will act as a delay for the formation of government or election to legislative bodies:

"It is the duty of court to protect all constitutional bodies. The presumption is of bona fides. Unless that is displaced, it is not proper to impede their functioning...they are accepting the ECI's power but saying they can also appoint state employees. Let them do their job. The presumption is in their favour and the record voter turn out shows that they are doing it well."

Agreeing, Sr. Adv. Naidu told that there is a presumption of correctness in favour of the ECI and such pleas cannot be entertained without basis.

The senior counsel for the petitioner questioned why the memo is vague and pointed out that the Returning Officers' Handbook has not been provided. He also said that before the Supreme Court, the challenge was not against the counting but against the transfer of the officers, the process of the appointment of the returning officers and police observers.

Sr. Adv Bandopadhyay: "After the process is underway why are you changing the rules of the game…after the schedule was declared? The question is not that appointment was made…it was whether it was proper."

Sr. Adv. Naidu: "Mr. Bandopadhyay, if you are making political speeches…how can I be quiet. Don't think you can get away with everything. You are using the court to saying this and indulge I'm character assassination…if you have merits ,then argue. Have we uttered even one word extra?"

"How can we have trust on them (ECI)? They are bringing preventive detention lists, trouble maker lists, and then withdraw it. Every time I am having to come to court..ECI is peturbed. They will be more peturbed on 4th [counting day]," Sr. Adv Bandopadhyay adds.

Referring to the memo, the Court: "It says apprehension in your memo from 'various quarters'. So these are your apprehensions."

Sr. Adv. Naidu: "The ECI can take steps as the situation demands. It had been done in Kerala as well."

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

Case No: WPA/10464/2026