3 key quotes from SC hearing explain why Court rejected TMC plea against central govt employees in Bengal vote counting

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like In a setback to the Trinamool Congress, the Supreme Court on Saturday upheld the Election Commission’s prerogative to appoint central government staff as counting supervisors for the West Bengal vote counting process. The Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi declined to pass any further order after accepting ECI's submission that TMC representatives will be there during the counting of votes. SC was hearing a plea by the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) against the Chief Electoral Officer's decision to deploy only Central government employees as vote counting supervisors for the assembly elections in West Bengal. (Image generated by AI)The plea was filed against the order of the Calcutta high court, which had dismissed the petition on Thursday. The high court said it is the prerogative of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to appoint the counting supervisor and the counting assistant, either from the State government or the Central government. Supreme Court's stance was not any different to HC's. 1. Senior advocate Kabil Sibal, appearing for TMC, argued that not allowing State government officers as vote-counting supervisors goes against Article 324 of the Constitution and amounts to casting aspersions on the State. The bench said that agents from every party will be present during the counting and that it hardly matters if the supervisors are central government nominees or not, it is up to ECI's subjective satisfaction to appoint the supervisor, adding that the bench 'cannot hold that this notification is contrary to the regulation since one is a central government officer but the others are not. Also Read | EC circular not contrary to rules: Big SC setback for TMC before Bengal results "It hardly matters if he is a central government nominee or not. It is to the subjective satisfaction of ECI. Your counting agents will be there, as will others. Then, there is a counting assistant, a counting supervisor and a micro-observer who is a Central government officer. We cannot hold that this notification is contrary to the regulation since one is a central government officer. Still, the others are not, so they cannot be central government employees. To choose wholly from one pool cannot be said to be incorrect," Justice Bagchi said. 2. Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India, said that the vote counting on May 4 will be done in the presence of a State government nominee. Naidu said this when the bench said Sibal had concerns about strict compliance with the circular. "We are saying that the state government nominee will be there. That will be followed even before all this," said Naidu. After which, Justice Narsimha said, "No further orders are needed in the SLP. We record the submission of Mr Naidu that the circular of ECI be followed in letter and spirit." 3. The bench flagged a clear shift in TMC’s stand during arguments. At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal attacked the Election Commission circular itself, arguing it cast doubt on the state’s role: “Please see the circular itself… it says there have been apprehensions… they want another central government nominee. Is this not pointing a finger at the state?” However, when the court observed that “to choose wholly from one pool cannot be said to be incorrect” and that “all of them are employees of the government,” Sibal shifted his position to argue that the circular must be followed strictly, particularly in including a state government nominee. This prompted Justice Bagchi to call out the inconsistency, remarking: “So have you written them… You were challenging the circular… and now you are saying follow it.”