Case Title
All India Trinamool Congress vs. Election Commission of India & Ors.
WPA 10488 of 2026
Bench
Justice Krishna Rao, Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court Refuses to Interfere in Counting Staff Appointment for Bengal Polls
In an important election related matter, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) challenging the appointment of Central Government and Central PSU employees as counting supervisor and counting assistant during vote counting for the West Bengal Assembly elections.
The Court held that the Election Commission has the authority to appoint such officials and found no illegality in the decision. It also observed that mere apprehension of bias without proof cannot be a ground for judicial interference during an ongoing election process.
What Was the Dispute?
The petitioner AITC, challenged a communication dated April 30, 2026 issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal.
The disputed clause stated:
“At least one among the counting supervisor and counting assistant at each counting table shall be a Central Government/Central PSU employee.”
AITC argued that:
the Additional Chief Electoral Officer had no jurisdiction to issue such directions,
the Election Commission’s handbook did not require counting supervisors or assistants to be Central Government employees,
only micro observers were supposed to be Central Government/Central PSU employees,
and appointing Central Government staff in West Bengal alone created an unfair electoral environment.
TMC’s Main Argument
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay argued that BJP controls the Central Government and therefore Central Government employees may be influenced during counting.
The petitioner claimed this could disturb the level playing field and affect transparency in counting.
Reliance was placed on:
Union Territory of Ladakh vs. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (2024) 18 SCC 643
Md. Daanish Farooqui vs. Election Commission of India (WPA(P) 192 of 2026)
to argue that courts must intervene where unjust executive action threatens free and fair elections.
Election Commission’s Defence
The Election Commission strongly opposed the petition and submitted that:
the plea was based only on suspicion and not on actual evidence,
the communication was issued to ensure transparency and integrity in counting,
counting halls are under CCTV surveillance,
micro observers are already Central Government employees under the handbook,
and judicial interference at this stage would disrupt the election process.
The Commission also relied on Article 329 of the Constitution and Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, stating that election disputes should be challenged through an election petition after results—not through a writ petition during the election process.
What the Court Said
Justice Krishna Rao examined Clause 15.7.9 of the Returning Officer Handbook, which states that:
Counting Supervisors should preferably be Gazetted Officers
Counting Assistants should be Group B or at least Group C officials of either Central or State Government
This means the law allows appointments from both Central and State Government services.
The Court held that choosing Central Government/Central PSU employees was within the Election Commission’s discretion and could not be called illegal.
Court Rejects Bias Allegation
The Court clearly stated that the allegation that Central Government employees would automatically act in favour of BJP was not believable.
It noted that:
micro observers,
counting agents of all candidates,
CCTV monitoring,
and multiple election officials
would all be present in the counting hall.
Therefore, manipulation by counting supervisors alone was “impossible to believe.”
On Jurisdiction of Additional Chief Electoral Officer
The Court also rejected the argument that the Additional Chief Electoral Officer lacked authority.
Referring to Section 19A of the Representation of the People Act, the Court held that the Election Commission can delegate its functions to officers such as the Additional Chief Electoral Officer.
Thus, the impugned communication was held to be validly issued.
Final Verdict
The Court concluded:
there was no illegality in appointing Central Government/Central PSU employees as counting supervisors and assistants,
the writ petition was based only on apprehension,
and if any actual manipulation happens, the petitioner can challenge it later through an election petition.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed WPA 10488 of 2026.
“This Court does not find any merit in the present writ application.”
