Calcutta High Court Upholds ECI Directive on Counting Staff; Rejects TMC Plea Challenging Use of Central Government Employees

Kolkata, May 2026 : The Calcutta High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) directive mandating the deployment of Central government and Central Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors and assistants for the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.

A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna Rao, which had reserved its judgment earlier in the day after hearing detailed arguments from both sides, pronounced the verdict in the evening, rejecting the petition in its entirety.

The court held that the Election Commission of India has full authority to decide the category of officials to be appointed for election-related duties, including counting supervisors and assistants. It observed that there was no illegality in the Commission’s decision to prefer Central government or Central PSU employees over state government personnel.

“It is the prerogative of the Election Commission of India to appoint counting supervisors and counting assistants either from the state government or the Central government. This Court does not find any illegality in appointing counting supervisors and counting assistants from Central government/Central PSU employees instead of state government employees,” the court stated.

The bench further noted that the impugned communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, was intended to ensure “transparency, integrity and orderly conduct of counting proceedings” and was part of the broader electoral process framework.

Referring to Clause 15.7.9 of the Handbook for Returning Officers, the court clarified that counting supervisors and assistants may be appointed from either Central or state government departments or equivalent public sector undertakings. It ruled that the ECI’s preference for Central government personnel was within the scope of its legal authority.

One of the key arguments raised by the Trinamool Congress was that Central government employees could allegedly be influenced by the BJP-led Union government, potentially affecting the fairness of the counting process. The court, however, rejected this apprehension as “unsustainable” and without legal basis.

It further observed that adequate safeguards exist in the system, including the presence of micro-observers—who are also drawn from Central government or PSU backgrounds—at each counting table. Additionally, counting agents appointed by candidates and other officials are present to ensure transparency and prevent malpractice.

The court also pointed out that if any irregularities or allegations of bias arise during counting, the affected party has the legal option to file an election petition after results are declared.

Citing Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the judgment stated that if it is proven that any counting official acted improperly or manipulated votes, such issues can be challenged through appropriate legal channels after the election.

The petition had specifically challenged a directive requiring that at least one of the counting supervisor or assistant at each table must be a Central government or Central PSU employee. The TMC argued that this condition was not mandated by the Election Commission’s handbook and exceeded its jurisdiction.

Senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the directive was arbitrary and selectively imposed in West Bengal. He argued that while micro-observers are required to be from Central government or PSU backgrounds, extending the same requirement to counting supervisors and assistants was unjustified and not uniformly applied across states.

However, after considering all submissions, the High Court upheld the Election Commission’s directive, reinforcing its authority over election management and staffing decisions.