New Delhi, 2 May

The Supreme Court on Saturday declined to pass further directions on a plea filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) challenging the deployment of central government personnel during vote counting in West Bengal by the Election Commission (EC).

Effectively upholding the framework outlined by the poll panel, a special bench comprising justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchisaid that the EC's 13 April circular, which provides for a mix of central and State government employees in the counting process on 4 May, was not contrary to law.

It said that the poll body has the discretion to appoint counting personnel from either pool.

"No further orders are necessary in this case except to record the statement of Mr D  Naidu, appearing for the poll panel, that the Election Commission will implement the circular dated April 13 in true letter and spirit. With this clarification, the special leave petition stands dismissed," the bench said in its order.

Polling for the 294-member West Bengal assembly was held in two phases on 23 April and 29 April. Votes will be counted on Monday.

In its 30 April judgment, the Calcutta High Court had rejected the TMC's contention that the EC's directive was issued without jurisdiction or based on vague apprehensions.

The high court also dismissed allegations that central government or PSU employees could be influenced by the Union government, noting the presence of multiple layers of oversight in the counting process. The TMC rushed to the top court to appeal against the directive leading to the special hearing on a Saturday, a court holiday.

During the hearing, the poll panel said the apprehensions of TMC of any wrongdoing is misplaced, as the circular very clearly states that there will be a mix of central and State government employees.

The EC assured the court that the circular would be implemented in letter and spirit, and there would be state government employees also during the counting.

At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the TMC, said the circular was dated 13 April, but they came to know about it on 29 April.

He said there are four issues: One, the circular appointing Central employees was issued to DEOs on April 13, but came to their knowledge only on April 29; Two, the Election Commission says it has apprehensions of irregularity, despite having a Central nominee in the counting process; Three, the poll body already has a Central government officer at each counting table in the form of a micro observer, and four, the commission has not appointed state nominees even though the circular provides so.

Sibal submitted that the Chief Electoral Officer's communication states that there are apprehensions expressed from various quarters regarding possible irregularities in counting. "That is like pointing a finger at the state government...," Sibal said, adding, "There must be some data. Where is (the proof of) the apprehension (raised) from each booth? They have not disclosed this. And why not tell us that they are going to have a Central government nominee?"

The bench told Sibal that even if the EC's circular had provided for the appointment of central employees as both the counting supervisor and the counting assistant, the court could not have faulted the decision.

"The option is open for the Election Commission: whether the counting supervisor and assistant may be of the Central or the State government. When that option is open, we cannot hold that the notification is contrary to regulations. Even if the EC says that both of them can be Central government employees, we could not have faulted them. Because regulations say that either the Central government or state government officers can be appointed," Justice Bagchi told Sibal.

Sibal then submitted that the court may ask the EC to follow the impugned circular in its entirety, which provides for a State government nominee.

"All we want is, in terms of the circular, the state government nominee should be there," he said.

Justice Bagchi asked if he wants compliance with the circular, then why is the TMC before the court.

Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the EC, submitted that the returning officer is a State government employee with overarching power to deploy personnel from any pool of government employees. "We are saying that there will be state government employees during the counting of votes," Naidu submitted, adding that each candidate will also have their own counting agent.

"The TMC's apprehension of any wrongdoing is completely misplaced," he reiterated.

The bench then disposed of the plea, saying that no further order is necessary and reiterated that the Election Commission will follow its circular in letter and spirit.

The Calcutta High Court had not agreed with the TMC's allegation that its main opponent, the BJP, controls the employees of the central government or PSUs, making them susceptible to suggestions and control by the Union government.

It had also noted that apart from the counting supervisors and assistants, micro-observers, counting agents of candidates and other personnel would also be present in the counting hall.