The Supreme Court today heard an urgent plea by the All India Trinamool Congress challenging the decision to deploy only Central government personnel as counting supervisors for the West Bengal assembly election results.

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi examined the challenge to a circular issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, which cited “apprehensions” of irregularities during vote counting as the basis for additional Central deployment. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for TMC, questioned both the timing and basis of the decision, arguing that the circular, issued on April 13, was not communicated to stakeholders until April 29, just days before counting.

“Where do they get that apprehension from?… This is shocking.”

With this, Mr Sibal raised four issues in relation to the above-stated circular-

• The circular dated April 13 was disclosed only on April 29, despite regular meetings with District Election Officers (DEOs).
• The Election Commission cited ‘apprehensions of irregularities’ without disclosing any material or basis for such concerns.
• A Central government micro-observer is already part of the counting process, making an additional Central nominee unnecessary.
• The plea also pointed to alleged non-compliance with the Election Commission’s own guidelines, including requirements for randomisation of counting personnel and inclusion of both State and Central officials.

On randomisation, Justice Joymalya Bagchi briefly observed that the choice of personnel falls within the Commission’s domain, and indicated that merely selecting officials from one pool may not be inherently illegal if permitted by the rules.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu for the Election Commission defended the process, stating that randomisation is followed strictly and both State and Central personnel are deployed in practice. “I have been following the circular to a perfection. My friend may not have been properly informed about what’s been going on there.” He emphasised that the Returning Officer, who is from the State government cadre, has overarching control, adding. He further explained that appointments are made through randomisation and include both Central and State personnel, adding,

“We have alternated in such a way, if first one is from the central government, the other is from the state government and vice versa, and the concerns raised were unfounded and completely misplaced apprehension.”

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, clarified the limited scope of the grievance, that “Mr. Sibal wants a strict compliance of the challenged circular.” In response, Mr. Naidu reiterated, “Milads may take from me, we have a state government employee also there.”

The Court has disposed of the matter without issuing further directions, recording the assurance given by Election Commission counsel, stating that “no further order was necessary in the SLP except to reiterate Mr. Naidu’s statement that the circular dated April 13 would be implemented in letter and spirit.”

The case arises from an appeal against the Calcutta High Court, which had upheld the Election Commission’s discretion, noting no illegality in appointing Central government employees for counting duties.

Appearances

Kapil Sibal, Meenakshi Arora Sr. Advs. with Samchit Garga AOR, Nipun Saxena Adv. For the Petitioner AITC

Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu Sr. Adv., Mr. Chaudhary Sr. Adv. For Respondent Election Commission of India