While dismissing a petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress, the Calcutta High Court has 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 Single Bench of Justice Krishna Rao held, “It is the prerogative of the office of the Election Commission of India to appoint the counting supervisor and counting assistant either from the State Government or the Central Government. This Court does not find any illegality for appointing counting supervisor and counting assistant from the Central Government/Central PSU employee instead of State Government employee.”

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu represented the Respodent.

Arguments

Relying upon the Handbook for the counting agent, Section A, Clause 1.13, the petitioner submitted that this provision does not allow the counting supervisors or counting assistants to be the Central Government/Central PSU employees.

Reasoning

Dealing with the facts of the case, the Bench discarded the allegation made by the petitioner that the main opponent of the petitioner is the BJP and Central Government/Central PSU employee who is under the control of the Central Government and likely to be susceptible to the suggestion and control of the persons in the BJP. “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”, it added.

The Bench also found that Section 19A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for the delegation of the functions of the Election Commission, and as such, it cannot be said that the Additional Chief Electoral Officer does not have the jurisdiction to issue such an order. “The allegation of the petitioner is that the main opponent of the petitioner is the BJP which admittedly runs and controls the Central Government and there is every chance that the Central Government/Central PSU employees who directly under the control of the Central Government and are likely to be susceptible to suggestion and control of the persons in the BJP. If the petitioner proves that the Central Government/Central PSU employees appointed as counting supervisor and counting assistants, helped the opponent of the petitioner by manipulating votes while counting the same, the petitioner has the liberty to take all the points in the election petition”, it added.

The Bench 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 Bench, 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.

Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench clarified, “...if the petitioner finds that during the counting, the Central Government employees who have been appointed as counting supervisor and counting assistants or favoured the candidate of the BJP due to which the candidate of the petitioner defeated, the petitioner has the liberty to challenge the same in an election petition.”

Cause Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. Election Commission of India (Case No.: WPA 10488 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, Advocates Dhruv Chadha. Shivam Pathak

Respondent: Senior Advocates Dama Seshadri Naidu, Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocates Abhinav Thakur Pradeep Kumar, Kumar Utsov, Ghanshyam Pandey, Anamika Pandey, Sanskriti Agarwal, Rishika Pandey

Click here to read/download Order


Calcutta High CourtJustice Krishna Rao

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.