Supreme Court Rejects TMC’s Bias Claim In Bengal Poll Counting “All of Them Are Government Employees”

India's top court on Saturday questioned the concerns raised by the Trinamool Congress over the role of central government employees in election counting, urging the party to place trust in public officials rather than assume bias. The remarks came during a hearing tied to the ongoing West Bengal Assembly Election process, with counting scheduled shortly.

Court Questions Assumptions Over Central Staff

The Supreme Court of India observed that the argument suggesting central government employees would act against a particular political party was flawed at its core. The bench underlined that such a claim rests on an assumption rather than evidence, advising the party to "give the government employees some credence".

The court's stance follows a recent order by the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the Election Commission of India decision to appoint central government and public sector employees as counting supervisors and assistants.

Kapil Sibal Raises Concerns Over EC Circular

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the party led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, referred to an Election Commission circular during arguments. He said, "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?"

Responding to this, Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked, "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 microobserver who is a central government officer."

The bench further clarified, "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."

Debate Over Representation and Process

Justice PS Narasimha also questioned the logic behind demanding proportional representation of officials. "What is this proportionate representation concept? All of them are employees of the government," he said.

When Sibal argued that state government nominees had not been appointed, the court responded, "So have you written to them. You were challenging the circular and now you are saying to follow it."

The Election Commission, in its submission, maintained that concerns raised by the state were misplaced. It clarified that state government officials would still be present at counting centres alongside central personnel.

EC Authority Upheld Ahead of Counting Day

Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had also ruled that such appointments fall within the exclusive domain of the Election Commission and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. It noted there is no requirement restricting appointments only to state government employees, allowing authorities to draw personnel from central, state or PSU pools.

Appearing for the poll body, senior advocate DS Naidu stated that the returning officer, typically a state government official, holds overarching authority to deploy staff from any pool of government employees.

Sibal later submitted that the circular should be implemented as it stands. It was at this point that the court questioned the contradiction, asking why the party had approached the court if it ultimately sought compliance with the same directive.