The Trinamool Congress (TMC) on Friday moved the Supreme Court for an urgent hearing, challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to appoint only central government employees as counting
supervisors for the two-phased West Bengal Assembly elections.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant gave directions for an urgent hearing of the matter on Saturday.
The TMC is approaching the apex court for an urgent hearing on Saturday, two days before the results of the West Bengal election. This came after the Calcutta High Court dismissed the TMC’s petition challenging the appointment of central government employees as supervisors in vote-counting centres.
In his ruling, Justice Krishna Rao held that there was no illegality in the EC’s decision to appoint counting supervisors and assistants from central government or PSU employees instead of state government staff.
“It is the prerogative of the office of the EC to appoint the counting supervisor and counting assistant either from the state government or the central government,” the court observed.
The petition was filed by the TMC, which challenged an April 30 communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, stating that at least one of the counting supervisor or assistant at each table should be a central government or PSU employee. Appearing for the TMC, counsel Kalyan Banerjee argued that the communication was issued without jurisdiction and was based on mere apprehension.
READ MORE: West Bengal Assembly Elections: Repolling Scheduled Tomorrow At 15 Booths In 2 Constituencies
The TMC had also raised concerns that Central government employees could be influenced by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which governs at the Centre. The court, however, dismissed this apprehension, pointing to the presence of multiple stakeholders during the counting process.
“Only the counting supervisor and the counting assistants will not be in the counting room. Micro observers, counting agents of the candidates who are contesting the election and counting personnel will also be in the counting room. Thus, it is impossible to believe the allegation made by the petitioner,” the court stated.
The counsel appearing for election authorities argued that the appointments were carried out in accordance with established procedure. He also argued that no single political party could question the Commission’s decision-making, adding that the preference for Central employees was intended to prevent allegations of bias.
