Calcutta High Court dismisses AITC plea challenging exclusion of State government and State PSU employees from counting supervisor and assistant roles in West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026
AITC Plea Dismissed
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the All India Trinamool Congress.
The party had challenged the appointment of Central Government and Central PSU employees as counting supervisors or counting assistants.
The issue arose in connection with the ongoing West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026.
Justice Krishna Rao held that the Election Commission of India has the power to make such appointments.
The Court said the Commission may select counting supervisors and counting assistants from either the State Government or the Central Government.
Therefore, the Court found no illegality in appointing Central Government or Central PSU employees for these roles.
Challenge To Chief Electoral Officer’s Communication
The All India Trinamool Congress filed the writ petition against a communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal.
The communication directed that at least one person at each counting table must be a Central Government or Central PSU employee.
This person could be either the counting supervisor or the counting assistant.
Petitioner Alleged Lack Of Jurisdiction And Bias
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay appeared for the petitioner.
He argued that the impugned direction lacked jurisdiction.
He also submitted that the direction departed from the Election Commission’s own handbook.
According to the petitioner, the handbook does not require Central Government staff for the posts of counting supervisor or counting assistant.
The petitioner further argued that micro-observers must be Central Government or PSU employees.
However, it said the Commission could not extend the same requirement to counting supervisors and counting assistants.
The AITC also claimed that the direction applied only to West Bengal.
Further, the party raised an apprehension of bias.
It alleged that Central employees may come under influence because the Central Government is controlled by the Bharatiya Janata Party.
According to the petitioner, this could affect the level playing field during counting.
Election Commission Opposed Plea
Senior Advocates Dama Seshadri Naidu and Jishnu Chowdhury appeared for the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer.
They opposed the plea.
They argued that the petition rested only on apprehension.
They also submitted that the petitioner had not shown any evidence of prejudice.
Further, they said the direction aimed to maintain transparency and integrity in the counting process.
The Election Commission also relied on Article 329 of the Constitution.
It argued that courts should not interfere once the electoral process has started.
According to the Commission, any counting irregularity can be challenged later through an election petition.
It said the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that remedy.
Court Says Appointment Is ECI’s Prerogative
Justice Krishna Rao noted that the Election Commission’s handbook permits such appointments.
The handbook allows counting supervisors and counting assistants to come from either Central Government or State Government services.
The Court observed:
“This is the prerogative of the authorities to either appoint from the Central Government or the State Government.”
Thus, the Court held that the Election Commission had acted within its powers.
It found no illegality in appointing Central Government or Central PSU employees instead of State Government employees.
Bias Allegation Rejected
The Court rejected the petitioner’s apprehension of bias.
It noted that the counting process has several safeguards.
These include micro-observers, counting agents of candidates and CCTV surveillance.
The Court also noted that micro-observers are already Central Government employees.
In view of these safeguards, the Court said it was “impossible to believe” the allegation made by the petitioner.
Additional Chief Electoral Officer Had Authority
The Court also considered the petitioner’s objection on jurisdiction.
It held that statutory provisions allow delegation of the Election Commission’s functions.
Therefore, the Court found that the Additional Chief Electoral Officer had authority to issue the communication.
Election Petition Remedy Available
The High Court reiterated that constitutional courts must show restraint during an ongoing election process.
It said the petitioner can raise any proven counting irregularity later.
However, such a challenge must be made through an election petition.
The Court specifically referred to Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
It said the provision gives a statutory remedy for grievances relating to counting irregularities.
No Ground For Judicial Interference
The Court also noted that similar challenges had earlier failed.
It further observed that the Supreme Court had kept the question of law open.
Ultimately, the Court found no illegality, arbitrariness or proven prejudice in the Election Commission’s decision.
Therefore, it dismissed the writ petition.
The Court held that a mere apprehension of bias cannot justify judicial interference in an ongoing electoral process.
Case Details
Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Case No.: WPA 10488 of 2026
Court: Calcutta High Court
Judge: Justice Krishna Rao
