Calcutta HC reserves order on TMC's plea against exclusion of State employees from vote counting supervisor duty

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its orders on a petition moved by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) against Chief Electoral Officer's decision to deploy only Central government employees as vote counting supervisors for the assembly elections in West Bengal..As per the ECI, the combined poll-percentage over the two-phases was 92.47 percent. The votes will be counted on May 4. Justice Krishna Rao heard detailed arguments of counsel representing the TMC and ECI and reserved the decision."You have issued order based on apprehension. Now come to paragraph 16 of the writ petition, have you issued to same order to Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu," the Court asked during the hearing. ECI counsel responded that a similar order was issued for Kerala. ."We have not singled out any State," the counsel said..Arguments.Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, representing a petitioner, said the Chief Electoral Officer had no jurisdiction to pass such order. "There is scope of the central government employee to be brought as counting supervisor and counting assistant," the senior counsel said.The Court asked how the Trinamool Congress was affected by such order. Bandopadhyay responded that the matter involves an important question of law."Why are you [ECI] insisting on Central government employees who are not involved in the process... is it for particular one party. Why did you [ECI] not disclose," Bandopadhyay said.He also questioned the rationale behind the order. "Do you disbelieve the State government employees. Entire election, you have done with assistance of State employees," he added..Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, representing the Chief Electoral Officer, submitted that all the appointments have been made as per the procedure. He said one political party cannot question the wisdom of the ECI."Either officials of State or Central government or officers of comparable status from undertakings of Central or State government can be deployed," he added.However, the Court said the objection of the petitioner was over the "adamancy" for Central government employees.Chowdhury said it was the wisdom of ECI to prefer Central government employees to avoid any form of allegation."They are authorized. This is not wrong. It is State or Centre. Central government employees have been selected," he added.Chowdhury said the Trinamool Congress' petition was based on a presumption that Central government would commit illegalities in the electoral process."There is no material to persuade that this state of things can happen," he said, adding there was no legal basis to the plea..Senior Advocate DS Naidu, representing the ECI, argued that a Division Bench of the High Court had already upheld the electoral body's powers to make appointments and transfers during the ongoing election. He added that a appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court with the question of law kept open.The High Court then asked that since the question of law has been kept open by the Supreme Court, which would be the competent court to decide the matter. Naidu responded that only the Supreme Court can now decide the question of law.However, the Court questioned the argument."You mean whatever is to be challenged is to be challenged in Supreme Court only," Justice Rao asked.Naidu responded that it was a usual practice that once question of law is kept open, only the top court can entertain a plea related to it. Continuing with his submissions, Naidu argued that Trinamool Congress had approached the Court at the eleventh hour. He added that any intervention at this stage could affect the counting process."They are feigning ignorance. Monday is the counting. If today there is interference, counting may not take place. Last 3-4 months, dozens of applications and petitions have been filed. They could not succeed," he said.Naidu added that he would need time to respond to the petition.In response, Bandopadhyay said the Division Bench judgment pertained to transfer of returning officers and police officers. "Earlier judgment was not touching the counting," he said..[Read Live Coverage]