TMC Supreme Court Hearing Highlights: No orders required, SC says concluding hearing on TMC plea against EC move

BJP leader Amit Malviya said the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene in the Trinamool Congress’ plea marks another legal setback for the party.

The TMC had challenged the exclusion of state government employees from vote counting supervisor duties and sought an urgent hearing. Malviya said the court’s response sends a clear message that attempts to question the integrity of the counting process will not be easily validated, calling it another “judicial rebuff” for Mamata Banerjee.

In a setback to the Trinamool Congress, the Supreme Court of India clarified that the Election Commission of India has the prerogative to choose the pool of officers for vote counting. The court observed that even if both the counting supervisor and counting agent are central government officials, the circular cannot be faulted on that ground.

The EC assured the court it is complying fully, with counsel D S Naidu stating that arrangements ensure balance—if the counting supervisor is from the Centre, the counting agent is from the state government.

In a significant shift before the Supreme Court of India, the Trinamool Congress moved from challenging the circular to seeking its implementation, urging that at least one counting staffer be appointed from the state government as per rules. This came after the court observed that even if both the counting supervisor and assistant were from the Centre, it could not be faulted under the circular framed by the Election Commission of India.

The Supreme Court of India concluded the hearing in the Trinamool Congress plea without passing any directions, stating no orders were necessary. The court only recorded the submission of the Election Commission of India that the circular on appointment of counting staff will be implemented in full letter and spirit. This came after TMC said it was now only seeking that at least one person at each counting table be a state government employee, in line with the circular.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court of India said government employees cannot be presumed to have any allegiance, stressing they act under official duty. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Trinamool Congress, clarified the party’s concern was the absence of state government nominees. The bench noted the shift in stance, remarking that the plea initially challenged the circular but was now seeking its enforcement. Sibal also raised concerns over preservation of CCTV footage, alleging it is destroyed.

The Election Commission of India, however, told the court it is following the circular properly, adding that arrangements ensure balance—where the counting supervisor is from the central government, the counting agent is from the state government.

The Supreme Court of India said that even if counting supervisors and assistants are drawn entirely from central government employees, it cannot be termed wrong, as the clause allows selection from a pool of either state or Centre officials under the Election Commission of India framework.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court of India that citing “possible irregularity” amounts to pointing a finger at the state government. The bench responded that all personnel deployed for the counting function are under the control of the Election Commission of India, making it immaterial whether they are from the Centre or the state. It added there is no requirement to confer with political parties, noting that election and counting agents will be present and each counting table will have three personnel.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court of India that rules “can’t be applied arbitrarily,” alleging the Election Commission of India is unfairly targeting the state by citing fears of irregularities. The court said all counting staff function under ECI control, making Centre vs state origin irrelevant, and ruled there is no need to consult parties. It added that rules allow staff from either pool, backing the ECI’s approach.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Trinamool Congress, raised multiple objections before the Supreme Court of India during the hearing challenging the Election Commission of India’s decision on counting staff. Sibal told the bench that there were “four issues” he wished to highlight, alleging lack of transparency in meetings, saying, “There are meetings, they don’t tell us about it.” He further argued that a central government nominee was already present as a micro observer, questioning the need for another such appointment. Referring to the relevant circular, Sibal contended that it mandates a state government nominee, but authorities were not following it, adding, “It’s what they like, how they like.” The bench, however, responded, “It’s not like that, Mr Sibal.”

The Supreme Court of India on Saturday began hearing a plea filed by the Trinamool Congress challenging the Election Commission of India’s decision to appoint only central government and Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors and assistants for vote counting scheduled on May 4. The party had sought an urgent hearing, following which a special two-judge bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi was constituted to hear the matter.

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.

The Trinamool Congress had sought an urgent hearing, and a special two-judge bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi will hear the case today.

The Supreme Court will start hearing on the Trinamool Congress plea, 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 at around 10.30 am.