"No Further Orders Are Necessary": Supreme Court Asks ECI To Follow Circular On Central Staff Appointments For West Bengal Vote Counting In TMC Plea

The Supreme Court heard a plea filed by the All India Trinamool Congress challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment that upheld the appointment of Central Government and Central PSU employees as counting supervisors and assistants for the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.

The Bench asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure the strict implementation of its April 13th circular, noting that no further orders were necessary following the ECI's assurance.

A special bench, consisting of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was constituted to hear the matter urgently on Saturday. This occurred because the vote counting for the elections was scheduled to begin at 8 AM on Monday, May 4th.

The Bench ordered, "No further orders are necessary in the Special Leave Petition except to reiterate the statement of Mr. Seshadri Naidu that the circular dated 13th April 2026 will be implemented."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared on behalf of the Trinamool Congress, while Senior Advocate Dema Seshadri Naidu appeared for the Election Commission of India.

Sibal submitted, "Point No. 2, they say that they have an apprehension that in every booth in West Bengal there is going to be trouble...I mean, this is shocking. Whether they get that apprehension from? They already have?... Third Point is they already have a central government nominee, micro observers, they already have...now they want another central government nominee. For what purpose? Point No. 4, the circular itself says that you should have a state government...they don't appoint a state government nominee."

Sibal submitted, "Please see the circular itself. Issued by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, it says there have been apprehensions from various quarters regarding discrepancies, etc. They want another Central Government nominee. Is this not pointing a finger at the State?"

Justice Bagchi remarked, "It hardly matters if he is a Central Government nominee or not. It is to the subjective satisfaction of the ECI. Your counting agents will be there, as will others."

Sibal said, "As well as election agents."

Justice Bagchi then added, "Then there is the counting assistant, counting supervisor, and micro-observer, who is a Central Government officer. We cannot hold that this notification is contrary to the regulations. While the regulations specify that one must be a Central Government officer, they do not state that the others can not also be Central Government employees."

The bench further said that the presence of Central Government employees as counting assistants, supervisors, or micro-observers was not contrary to regulations. Justice Bagchi stated that the rules did not expressly forbid choosing staff entirely from one pool of employees.

When Sibal protested and referenced specific pages of the circular to argue otherwise, Justice Narasimha questioned the concept of "proportionate representation," noting that all involved were government employees.

Justice Bagchi pointed out the irony that the petitioner, while challenging the circular, was now asking for its strict enforcement.

Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, representing the ECI, argued that the Returning Officer, who was a State Government employee, held overarching power and selected the officers. He dismissed the petitioner's concerns as "misplaced apprehensions."

Justice Narasimha instructed the ECI to ensure that the provisions of the circular were followed. Finally, Sibal requested that the CCTV footage be preserved, to which Naidu responded that such footage was kept for 45 days.

While dismissing a petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress, the Calcutta High Court had found no illegality in the appointment of counting supervisors and counting assistants from the Central Government/Central PSU employees instead of State Government employees. The High Court was considering a writ application challenging the communication issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, only with regard to a Clause wherein it was mentioned that “at least one among the counting supervisor and counting assistant at each counting table shall be a Central Government/Central PSU employee”.

The Court held that the Additional Chief Electoral Officer had the legal authority to issue the notification. It clarified that the Election Commission possessed the prerogative to choose staff from either the Central or State Government.

Ultimately, the Court found no illegality in the decision and dismissed the writ application. It noted that the petitioner retained the right to file an election petition if any actual manipulation occurred during the counting process.

The High Court had also explained that Clause 15.7.9 provides that counting staff appointments should be made in the form given in Annexure 35, and Counting supervisors should preferably be Gazetted Officers (Group B or above), Counting Assistants should also be Group B or at least Group C officials of the Central or State Government or officers of comparable status from Central or State Government undertakings. As per the Court, it is the prerogative of the authorities to either appoint from the Central Government or the State Government and in the present case, the authorities had decided for appointment of counting supervisor or a counting assistant from the Central Government/Central PSU employee.

Cause Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. Election Commission of India and Ors. [Diary No. 26799/2026]