<p>The <strong>Supreme Court</strong> on <strong>2 May 2026</strong> dismissed the All India Trinamool Congress (<span class="key-term" data-definition="All India Trinamool Congress – Regional political party in West Bengal, led by Mamata Banerjee (GS2: Polity)">AITC</span>)’s challenge to an <span class="key-term" data-definition="Election Commission of India – Independent constitutional authority that administers elections to the Parliament, state legislatures and the President (GS2: Polity)">ECI</span> circular dated 13 April 2026. The circular directs that at least one among the Counting Supervisor and Counting Assistant at each counting table be a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Central Government/PSU employee – Officer under the administrative control of the Union Government or a Public Sector Undertaking, appointed to ensure neutrality in election processes (GS2: Polity)">Central Government/PSU employee</span>. The Court ordered strict compliance with the circular, emphasizing that no further judicial intervention is warranted.</p>
<h3>Key Developments</h3>
<ul>
<li>Special bench comprising <strong>Justice P.S. Narasimha</strong> and <strong>Justice Joymalya Bagchi</strong> reiterated that the circular must be followed “in letter and spirit”.</li>
<li>The hearing was urgent as vote counting for the <strong>West Bengal Assembly elections 2026</strong> was scheduled to begin at 8 AM on <strong>4 May 2026</strong>.</li>
<li>Senior Advocate <span class="key-term" data-definition="Kapil Sibal – Senior lawyer and former Union Minister, representing AITC in the case (GS2: Polity)">Kapil Sibal</span> raised four objections, including delayed notice of the circular and alleged bias favoring the Central Government.</li>
<li>The Court observed that the circular allows flexibility – either Central or State officers can be appointed – and therefore cannot be deemed violative of regulations.</li>
<li>The petition also contested the authority of the Additional Chief Electoral Officer under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 19A of the Representation of the People Act – Provision limiting delegation of ECI powers to specific officers (GS2: Polity)">Section 19A of the RP Act</span>, but the Court found no ground for interference.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Important Facts</h3>
<p>1. The circular was issued to District Election Officers on 13 April 2026 but became known to AITC only on 29 April 2026.<br>
2. AITC argued that the presence of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Micro‑observer – An election official appointed by the Central Government to monitor counting at each table (GS2: Polity)">micro‑observers</span> already satisfied the requirement for Central representation, making the new directive redundant.<br>
3. The petition cited Article 14 (equality) and Article 329(b) (non‑interference in elections) of the Constitution, claiming the circular created a bias and that the High Court erred in invoking the election‑related bar.
</p>
<h3>
Loading page, please wait…