The Supreme Court on Saturday disposed of a petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) challenging the appointment of Central Government and Central PSU employees as vote counting supervisors and assistants for the West Bengal Assembly elections, after the Election Commission of India (ECI) assured the court that a State government nominee would be present during the counting process as per its circular.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter on an urgent basis, as vote counting is scheduled to begin at 8 AM on Monday, 4 May 2026. The court recorded the submission of Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, that the circular dated 13 April 2026 would be followed in letter and spirit. “We are saying that State government nominee will be there,” Naidu told the bench.
“No further orders are necessary except to reiterate the statement of Mr. Naidu… that the circular… will be implemented in letter and spirit,” the Supreme Court observed while closing the matter.
The TMC had moved the apex court against a Calcutta High Court order dated 30 April that upheld the ECI’s directive to deploy central govt and PSU employees for the counting process. The Calcutta High Court had dismissed the TMC’s plea, holding that it was the ECI’s prerogative to appoint counting personnel from either State or Central government employees. It had also noted that any grievances could be raised through election petitions post-results.
The communication from the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, had specified that at least one among the Counting Supervisor and Counting Assistant at each table shall be a Central Government or Central PSU employee. This was issued citing apprehensions from various quarters regarding possible irregularities in counting, to ensure transparency and integrity.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the TMC, argued that the directive cast aspersions on the State government and violated principles of fairness under Article 324 of the Constitution. He pointed out that the circular itself contemplated random selection from both Central and State pools and that a micro-observer (a Central officer) was already present at each table. Sibal urged strict compliance with the circular to include a State government nominee and sought preservation of CCTV footage.
The bench noted that the presence of party counting agents, micro-observers, and other safeguards addressed concerns of bias. Justice Bagchi observed that the ECI had the prerogative to appoint officers from either pool, and even appointing both from the Central cadre would not necessarily be flawed.
Justice Bagchi said, “The option is open that the counting supervisor and counting assistant may be of the central government or may be of the state government. So when that option is open we can’t hold that the notification is contrary to regulations. They can even say that both of them can be Central. Even if they had said that we could not have faulted them. Because regulation say that either Central Government or state government officers can be appointed.”
The court emphasised that the Returning Officer, often a State cadre officer, holds overarching powers. At the end, the court decided that no order is needed to be passed, except to reiterate ECI’s own submission that its circular should be followed in letter and spirit.
