A special bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will hear All India Trinamool Congress’s challenge to the deployment of Central Government and Central PSU employees as counting supervisors and assistants for the West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026.
Special Sitting Fixed Before Counting
The Supreme Court will hear on Saturday the plea filed by the All India Trinamool Congress against the Election Commission’s decision on counting staff for the West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026.
A special Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will hear the matter urgently.
The urgency arose because counting of votes is scheduled to begin at 8 AM on Monday, May 4, 2026.
AITC Challenges Calcutta High Court Order
AITC has challenged the April 30, 2026 judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
The High Court had dismissed AITC’s challenge to a communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal.
The communication directed that at least one person among the Counting Supervisor and Counting Assistant at every counting table must be a Central Government or Central PSU employee.
According to the communication, this step aimed to address apprehensions raised by “various quarters” about possible irregularities in counting. It also sought to ensure transparency, integrity and orderly conduct.
Party Alleges Apprehension Of Bias
AITC argued that the appointment of Central Government and Central PSU employees creates a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The party submitted that such employees work under the administrative control of the Central Government.
It further stated that the Central Government is run by AITC’s political rival, the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Therefore, AITC claimed that the arrangement affects the principle that justice must not only be done, but must also appear to be done.
Plea Claims Risk Of Partisan Influence
In its plea, AITC alleged that Central Government and Central PSU employees may remain vulnerable to influence from persons connected with the ruling party at the Centre.
The party claimed that this creates an apparent risk of bias, influence and partisan conduct during vote counting.
It also argued that the counting process must appear neutral to all contesting parties.
Reliefs Sought Before Supreme Court
AITC has sought a stay on the High Court judgment dated April 30, 2026.
It has also sought a stay on the ECI communication dated April 13, 2026.
In the alternative, the party has asked the Supreme Court to direct deployment of both Central and State Government employees as counting supervisors and assistants at each counting table.
Additionally, AITC has sought preservation of CCTV footage of all counting rooms during the pendency of the proceedings.
Article 14 Challenge Raised
AITC argued that the impugned communication is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
The party pointed out that elections in Assam, Kerala and Puducherry took place without such a requirement.
Therefore, it questioned why the ECI applied this condition only to West Bengal.
According to AITC, the selective application of this procedure lacks a rational basis. It also claimed that the decision prejudices the party during the counting process.
Decision Allegedly Based On Vague Apprehensions
AITC also argued that the ECI relied on vague apprehensions of possible irregularities.
The party submitted that the communication does not disclose any material, criteria or methodology behind the decision.
As a result, AITC claimed that the lack of transparency raises concerns about objectivity and fairness.
Micro-Observers And CCTV Claimed Insufficient
The party further submitted that micro-observers and CCTV cameras do not answer its core objection.
According to AITC, these safeguards do not address the composition of counting staff.
The party relied on Clause 9.1 of the ECI Handbook for Counting Agents, 2023.
It submitted that Central Government or PSU presence already exists through micro-observers at each counting table.
Therefore, AITC argued that the ECI need not draw counting supervisors or assistants from the same pool.
It also claimed that the impugned direction gives disproportionate representation to Central personnel.
Authority Of Additional CEO Questioned
AITC has also questioned the authority of the Additional Chief Electoral Officer to issue the communication.
The party relied on Section 19A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
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.
AITC further argued that the issue falls within the constitutional domain of Article 324.
According to the party, only the Election Commission, comprising the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, can take such a policy decision during an ongoing election.
Lack Of Consultation Alleged
AITC claimed that the ECI did not conduct any consultation before issuing the direction.
It also alleged that recognised political parties did not get any opportunity to make representations.
Moreover, the party submitted that the communication was not made public.
According to AITC, the ECI issued it only to District Election Officers. The party claimed that it came to know about the direction only recently and then moved the High Court.
High Voter Turnout Cited
AITC also referred to the high voter turnout in the West Bengal Assembly elections.
The party stated that voter turnout stood at around 92.7% across two phases.
It further submitted that, by the ECI’s own admission, the elections remained free and fair without major incidents of violence.
Therefore, AITC argued that the basis for issuing the impugned communication remains unclear.
Allegation Of Fear And Intimidation
The party also alleged that a large presence of Central Government personnel at counting tables may create fear and intimidation.
According to AITC, such an atmosphere may affect neutrality during counting.
It submitted that the counting process must remain fair, transparent and free from coercive influence.
Article 329(b) Finding Challenged
On maintainability, AITC challenged the High Court’s interpretation of Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
Article 329(b) bars judicial interference in ongoing elections.
However, AITC argued that this bar does not completely exclude the High Court’s power under Article 226.
The party submitted that constitutional courts can examine executive action during elections.
It argued that courts must intervene when such action appears arbitrary, mala fide or damaging to the level playing field.
High Court’s Reasoning Challenged
AITC also challenged the High Court’s view that it could not decide the issue because the Supreme Court had kept a question of law open in an earlier case.
According to the party, an open question of law does not prevent a High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
It argued that the High Court’s refusal amounted to an abdication of judicial function.
Election Petition Remedy Termed Ineffective
AITC further challenged the High Court’s finding that an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 would be an effective remedy.
The party argued that an election petition offers only a post-facto remedy.
Therefore, it cannot prevent an allegedly flawed counting process before it takes place.
Urgent Intervention Sought Before Counting
AITC has sought urgent intervention from the Supreme Court before counting begins on May 4, 2026.
The party submitted that without immediate relief, the counting process may not remain free and fair.
The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Sanchit Garga.
Case Details
Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. Election Commission of India
Case No.: Diary No. 26799/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
