Agencies | New Delhi:
The Trinamool Congress (TMC) on Friday approached the Supreme Court of India seeking an urgent hearing against the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s decision to appoint central government employees as counting supervisors for the two-phase West Bengal Assembly elections.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed that the matter be heard urgently on Saturday. The case is set to be listed before a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi.
The TMC moved the apex court just two days ahead of the election results, following the dismissal of its plea by the Calcutta High Court. The High Court had upheld the ECI’s decision to deploy central government and public sector undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors and assistants instead of state government staff.
In his ruling, Justice Krishna Rao observed that the Election Commission holds the authority to appoint counting personnel. “It is the prerogative of the EC to appoint counting supervisors and assistants either from the state government or the central government,” the court noted.
The TMC’s petition challenges an April 30 communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal, which mandated that at least one official at each counting table should be from the central government or a PSU. Representing the party, counsel Kalyan Banerjee argued that the directive lacked jurisdiction and was based on unfounded concerns.
The party also expressed apprehension that central government employees could be influenced by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is in power at the Centre. However, the High Court dismissed these claims, highlighting the presence of multiple stakeholders in the counting process.
“Counting supervisors and assistants are not the only individuals present. Micro observers, counting agents of contesting candidates, and other personnel are also in the counting hall, making such allegations untenable,” the court stated.
Counsel representing the election authorities maintained that the appointments were made in accordance with established procedures and emphasised that no single political party could question the Commission’s decision-making framework. The preference for central employees, he argued, was aimed at ensuring neutrality and preventing allegations of bias.
