The Supreme Court reiterated the Election Commission of India’s statement that its April 13, 2026 circular on deployment of counting personnel in West Bengal elections will be implemented in “letter and spirit”.
Supreme Court Declines Further Interference
The Supreme Court today closed the plea filed by the All India Trinamool Congress.
AITC had challenged the Election Commission of India’s decision on vote counting staff for the West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026.
A special Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
The Court said no further directions were required. However, it recorded and reiterated the ECI’s statement that the circular dated April 13, 2026 would be followed in “letter and spirit”.
Court Records ECI’s Statement
The dispute concerned the ECI’s direction on counting tables.
Under the circular, at least one person among the Counting Supervisor and Counting Assistant at each table must be a Central Government or Central PSU employee.
The Court recorded the statement made by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, who appeared for the ECI.
The Bench said:
“No further orders are necessary except to reiterate the statement of Mr. Naidu that the circular dated April 13, 2026 will be implemented in letter and spirit.”
The Court heard the matter urgently because counting was scheduled to begin at 8 AM on Monday, May 4, 2026.
Kapil Sibal Raises Objections For AITC
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for AITC, raised four main objections.
First, he argued that the circular reached District Election Officers on April 13, 2026. However, AITC came to know about it only on April 29, 2026.
Secondly, he submitted that the ECI referred to apprehensions of irregularities at every booth. Yet, according to him, the ECI did not disclose any supporting material.
Thirdly, Sibal argued that the ECI already had a Central Government nominee at each counting table through a micro-observer.
Finally, he submitted that the ECI had not appointed a State Government nominee, although the circular provided for one.
Bench Notes Scope Of ECI’s Power
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Court may not have faulted the ECI even if both counting officers came from the Central Government.
The Bench noted that the governing framework allows appointment of either Central Government or State Government officers as counting personnel.
Therefore, the Court indicated that the notification did not violate the applicable rules merely because it included Central Government employees.
AITC Seeks State Government Nominee
Thereafter, Sibal urged the Court to direct strict compliance with the circular.
He particularly pressed for the presence of a State Government nominee.
“All we want is, in terms of the Circular, the state government nominee should be there,” he submitted.
On the other hand, Naidu argued that AITC’s apprehension was misplaced.
He submitted that the Returning Officer has overarching powers. He also pointed out that the Returning Officer belongs to the State Government cadre.
Further, he said every candidate would have a counting agent at the counting centre.
AITC Challenged Calcutta High Court Order
AITC had approached the Supreme Court against the Calcutta High Court’s April 30, 2026 judgment.
The High Court had dismissed AITC’s challenge to a communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal.
That communication required at least one Central Government or Central PSU employee among the Counting Supervisor and Counting Assistant at every counting table.
The communication cited apprehensions raised by “various quarters” about possible counting irregularities.
It also stated that the direction aimed to ensure transparency, integrity and orderly conduct.
Party Alleged Apprehension Of Bias
In its petition, AITC argued that the appointment of Central Government and Central PSU employees created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The party submitted that these employees work under the administrative control of the Central Government.
It further argued that the Central Government is run by its political rival, the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Therefore, AITC claimed that the arrangement affected the principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.
Reliefs Sought Before Supreme Court
AITC sought a stay on the High Court’s judgment dated April 30, 2026.
It also sought a stay on the ECI communication dated April 13, 2026.
In the alternative, the party asked the Court to direct deployment of both Central and State Government employees as counting supervisors and assistants.
AITC also sought preservation of CCTV footage of all counting rooms during the proceedings.
Article 14, RP Act And ECI Handbook Arguments
AITC alleged that the ECI communication was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
It also argued that elections in Assam, Kerala and Puducherry did not follow this requirement.
Therefore, the party questioned why the ECI applied the Central employee requirement only in West Bengal.
AITC also relied on Clause 9.1 of the ECI Handbook for Counting Agents, 2023.
According to the party, the ECI had already ensured Central Government or PSU presence through micro-observers at each table.
AITC Questions Additional CEO’s Authority
AITC also questioned the authority of the Additional CEO to issue the communication.
The party relied on Section 19A of the Representation of the People Act.
It argued that delegation of ECI powers extends only to the Deputy Election Commissioner or Secretary to the Election Commission.
Accordingly, it submitted that such power cannot extend to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Maintainability And Article 329(b)
AITC also challenged the High Court’s view on maintainability.
The party argued that the High Court misread Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
Article 329(b) bars judicial interference in ongoing elections.
However, AITC submitted that this bar does not completely exclude the High Court’s power under Article 226.
It argued that courts can examine executive action during elections when parties allege arbitrariness, mala fides or damage to the level playing field.
The party also rejected the High Court’s view that an election petition under Section 100 of the RP Act would offer an effective remedy.
According to AITC, that remedy comes only after the election. Therefore, it cannot prevent an allegedly flawed counting process.
Case Details
Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. Election Commission of India
Diary No.: 26799/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
