The Trinamool Congress on Friday approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Election Commission’s decision to appoint only central government and Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors and assistants for vote counting on May 4. The party sought an urgent hearing, and a special two-judge bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi will hear the case on Saturday.
The move came amid rising tensions during the second phase of polling, after West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee alleged that “observers from outside” and police officers unfamiliar with Bengal were being deployed in a manner that targeted TMC workers. Her remarks added to an already charged political atmosphere marked by clashes between the TMC and the BJP workers during the second phase of polling.
Recently, the Additional Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of West Bengal issued a communication stating that at least one among the counting supervisor or counting assistant at every counting table must be a central government or a PSU employee. The TMC challenged the directive, arguing that such an order could only be issued by the Election Commission and not by the Additional CEO, LiveLaw reported.
The party contended that the direction departed from the Election Commission’s handbook, which does not mandate central personnel for counting supervisor or assistant roles. The TMC argued that while micro-observers are typically drawn from central services, extending the same requirement to counting staff was arbitrary and unique to West Bengal.
In its plea, the TMC alleged potential bias, claiming that central government employees could be influenced because the central government is controlled by a political party, thereby affecting a level-playing field during counting.
The Calcutta High Court rejected these arguments, holding that the Election Commission’s handbook allows counting staff to be appointed from either central or state government services. The court ruled that the selection of personnel falls within the discretion of election authorities, according to LiveLaw.
Dismissing allegations of bias, the High Court had noted that several safeguards already exist in the counting process, including micro-observers, candidate-appointed counting agents and CCTV surveillance. It said the apprehensions raised by TMC were not backed by evidence.
The High Court referred to earlier litigation on similar election-related challenges, noting that while a related special leave petition had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, the legal question remained open for future consideration, LiveLaw reported. Holding that mere suspicion of bias was insufficient for judicial interference, the High Court dismissed the petition, prompting TMC to approach the Supreme Court.
POLITICAL TENSIONS IN BENGAL
The TMC’s move came amid escalating political tensions during the second phase of polling, with both the TMC and BJP trading allegations of intimidation and interference. Several constituencies witnessed clashes between rival supporters, while heightened security deployment triggered criticism from the ruling party.
A senior police officer from Uttar Pradesh – Ajay Pal Sharma – also known as the “UP Singham officer” – also came under scrutiny after issuing stern warnings to a TMC candidate against attempts to obstruct polling or challenge security personnel.
The TMC criticised the IPS officer’s conduct, alleging intimidation of party workers. The BJP defended the strict security measures necessary to ensure free and fair voting.
Tensions escalated further after senior TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee alleged that central forces had pushed an elderly man to death while he was being helped by his son to enter a polling booth in Howrah. The allegation intensified the party’s criticism of central security deployment during polling, though the Election Commission is yet to respond to the claim.
– Ends
Tune In
