SC rejects Mamata's plea against Central govt staff for counting duty
text_fields
New Delhi: In a special Saturday sitting ahead of the May 4 vote count for the West Bengal Assembly elections, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to appoint Central government and Central Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors and assistants. However, it directed the poll panel to adhere to its own circular mandating the presence of state government nominees “in letter and spirit”.
A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress challenging a Calcutta High Court order that had dismissed its plea against the ECI’s framework for deploying counting personnel.
Recording assurances from senior advocate Dama Naidu, appearing for the ECI, the apex court disposed of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) without issuing further directions. “No further orders are needed in the SLP. We record the submission of Mr Naidu that the circular of ECI be followed in letter and spirit,” the Bench, led by Justice Narasimha, stated.
Naidu informed the court that vote counting on May 4 would take place in the presence of state government nominees, as stipulated in the ECI’s circular. “We are saying that the state government nominee will be there. That will be followed even before all this,” he assured.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Trinamool Congress, argued that the ECI’s move to predominantly deploy Central government personnel cast unwarranted doubts on the state administration and violated Article 324 of the Constitution, as well as the poll body’s own guidelines.
“This circular is issued to the District Election Officer, and we became aware of it on April 29. Typically, advance notice is given. The implication is that there could be issues at every booth. There is already one Central government nominee, and now they want another. The circular requires a state government nominee, but they have not appointed one,” Sibal contended.
Responding to these concerns, Justice Bagchi observed that the ECI retains discretion under the regulatory framework to appoint either Central or state government officials for counting duties. “The option is open that the counting supervisor and counting assistant may be from the Central government or the state government. When that option exists, we cannot hold the notification to be contrary to the regulations,” he remarked.
Justice Narasimha also questioned the basis of the Trinamool’s apprehensions, noting that counting would occur in the presence of multiple stakeholders, including candidates’ counting agents and micro-observers. “What is this concept of proportionate representation? All of them are government employees,” he said.
When Sibal pressed for strict compliance with the circular, the court reiterated that adherence to the ECI’s own framework would provide adequate safeguards. “Make sure what is there in the circular is followed,” the Bench directed.
The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Trinamool Congress urgently challenged the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to quash the ECI’s deployment order.
Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had upheld the poll body’s authority, stating that the regulatory framework does not prohibit the appointment of Central personnel and that such decisions fall within the ECI’s supervisory powers. “It is the prerogative of the ECI to appoint counting supervisors and assistants either from the state government or the Central government. This Court does not find any illegality in appointing them from Central government or Central PSU employees instead of state government employees,” a single-judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao had ruled.
The High Court also cited Clause 15.7.9 of the handbook for Returning Officers, which allows counting staff to be drawn from either Central or state government services or equivalent organisations.
Addressing the Trinamool Congress’ contention that Central government employees—being under the administrative control of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union government—might favour the Opposition in the state, the High Court held that such concerns were not tenable.
It noted that micro-observers, typically drawn from Central government or PSU employees, would be present at each counting table, alongside counting agents of candidates and other officials, ensuring sufficient checks and balances in the process.
With IANS inputs