Top News

New DelhiMay 1. Now the Supreme Court has entered before the results of West Bengal Assembly elections. In fact, Trinamool Congress (TMC) on Friday filed an application for urgent hearing in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India (ECI), under which it was decided to appoint only central government employees as counting observers. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed for an immediate hearing on the matter on Saturday.

Calcutta High Court had rejected TMC’s petition

TMC approached the Supreme Court for urgent hearing of the petition after the Calcutta High Court rejected its petition challenging the appointment of central government employees as supervisors at vote-counting centres.

Justice Krishna Rao in his judgment said there was nothing illegal in the EC’s decision to appoint counting supervisors and assistants from among central government or PSU employees instead of state government employees. The court had said, ‘Only the EC office has the right to appoint counting supervisors and counting assistants from either the state government or the central government.’

The petition was filed by TMC, challenging a direction issued by the Additional Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal on April 30. In this instruction it was said that at least one person from the counting supervisor or assistant present at every table should be an employee of the Central Government or PSU. Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for TMC, argued that the direction was issued without any jurisdiction and was based only on mere apprehension.

The party led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had also expressed concern that central government employees could be influenced by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is in power at the Centre. However, the court rejected this apprehension and cited the presence of multiple stakeholders during the counting process.

The High Court had said, ‘Only the counting supervisor and counting assistant will not be in the counting room. Micro observers, counting agents and counting staff of the contesting candidates will also be present in the counting room. Therefore, it is impossible to believe the allegations made by the petitioner.

The lawyer appearing for the Election Commission argued that the appointments were made as per the prescribed procedure. He also argued that no single political party can question the way the Commission takes decisions. He further said that the purpose of giving priority to central employees was to prevent allegations of favoritism.