The Supreme Court of India upheld the Election Commission's directive to deploy only Central government and Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) employees as vote counting supervisors for the West Bengal Assembly elections. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, following the Calcutta High Court’s dismissal of TMC’s earlier petition. The counting of votes is scheduled for 4 May 2026.According to Bar and Bench, the TMC’s plea was listed on an urgent basis due to the proximity of the vote counting date. The party is contesting the Chief Electoral Officer’s decision, which mandates that at least one counting supervisor and assistant at each table must be a Central government or Central PSU employee, rather than a state government employee.As reported by The Hindu, the Calcutta High Court had previously ruled that the Election Commission has the prerogative to appoint counting supervisors and assistants from either the state or Central government. The High Court found no illegality in the decision to prefer Central government employees for these roles, and stated that any challenge to the process could be made through an election petition after results are declared.As highlighted by Hindustan Times, the TMC’s petition argues that the directive “significantly” alters the composition of counting personnel, raising concerns about neutrality and a level playing field. The party contends that the presence of Central government employees, who are under the administrative control of the Union government, could create a reasonable apprehension of bias, especially since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the ruling party at the Centre.As coverage revealed, the Calcutta High Court’s order referenced the Election Commission’s handbook, which allows for the appointment of counting supervisors and assistants from either Central or state government officials. The court also noted that micro-observers, who are invariably Central government or PSU employees, would be present at every counting table, providing additional oversight.“It is the prerogative of the ECI to appoint counting supervisors and counting assistants either from the state government or the Central government. This Court does not find any illegality in appointing counting supervisors and counting assistants from Central government/Central PSU employees instead of state government employees,” the Calcutta High Court stated.In the Supreme Court, the TMC’s legal team, led by senior advocates, has sought an interim stay on the Election Commission’s directive, citing legitimate concerns of institutional control and structural bias. The party has also pointed out that similar arrangements have not been made in other states holding elections concurrently with West Bengal as analysis showed.The Election Commission, in its defence, has maintained that the directive is intended to ensure transparency, integrity, and orderly conduct of the counting process. The Commission has also highlighted that the counting rooms will be under CCTV surveillance, and that counting agents of all candidates, as well as other officials, will be present to maintain checks and balances following reports.In addition, the TMC has argued that the Election Commission’s own Handbook for Counting Agents, 2023, already requires micro-observers from the Central government or PSUs, and that the new directive introduces an additional layer of Central oversight. The party claims this is arbitrary and specific to West Bengal, rather than a uniform national policy as reporting indicated.“This creates a reasonable apprehension of bias, undermines the neutrality of the counting process, and disturbs the level playing field between contesting political parties,” the TMC’s petition stated.The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter is awaited, with the outcome likely to have significant implications for the conduct of vote counting in West Bengal and potentially in other states. The bench is expected to consider both the legal validity of the Election Commission’s directive and the concerns raised by the TMC regarding fairness and transparency at the end of proceedings.Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.