Supreme Court of India questioned All India Trinamool Congress objections to central staff in counting, calling it a “fallacy”. Court stressed trust in Election Commission of India and neutrality of officials.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday questioned the basis of objections raised by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) against the use of central government personnel for election counting duties. The Court noted that the party’s claim suggesting that central employees would inevitably work against it was based on an incorrect premise. The Court described the line of reasoning as a “fallacy” and said the party should instead “give the government employees some credence”.
The remarks were made while hearing ongoing legal disputes related to the arrangements for counting votes in the West Bengal Assembly Election. Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had, just days before, affirmed an Election Commission of India (ECI) decision to appoint officials from the central government and public sector undertakings (PSUs) as counting supervisors and assistants. The decision had dismissed a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the party and relied on an ECI circular.
He argued,
“It says there has been apprehension from various quarters regarding discrepancy. They want another central government nominee. Is this not pointing a finger at the state?”
He further submitted that the proposal could be interpreted as weakening the role of state officials in the electoral process.
In response, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed,
“It hardly matters if he is a central government nominee or not. It is to the subjective satisfaction of the EC. Your counting agents will be there and so will others. Then counting assistant, counting supervisor and micro observer who is a central government officer.”
The Court added,
“We cannot hold that this notification is contrary to the regulation since one is a central government officer, but the others are not. To choose wholly from one pool cannot be said to be incorrect.”
Justice P. S. Narasimha also questioned the petitioner’s approach, remarking,
“What is this proportionate representation concept? All of them are employees of the government.”
When Sibal argued that no state government nominees were appointed, the Bench responded, “So have you written to them. You were challenging the circular and now you are saying to follow it,” pointing to what the Bench viewed as inconsistency in the party’s position.
During the hearing, the Election Commission submitted that the apprehensions raised by the State were not justified, noting that officials from the State government would also be present and participate in the counting process. It emphasized that safeguards such as counting agents and observers provide adequate transparency and fairness.
The Calcutta High Court’s earlier decision had likewise stressed that selecting counting personnel is within the exclusive authority of the Election Commission. It had noted that there is no legal requirement limiting such appointments only to state government employees, and that personnel may be sourced from central services, state services, or PSUs.
Appearing for the ECI, senior advocate D. S. Naidu argued that the returning officer an official of the State administration retains overall control and can appoint personnel from different government pools as required.
Near the end of the proceedings, Sibal stated that he wanted the circular to be implemented in its original form. At that point, the Supreme Court asked why the party had approached the Court if it ultimately sought compliance with the same circular, raising concerns about the maintainability of the challenge.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
