‘Follow Your Own Rules’: Calcutta High Court Stops ECI Appointment of College Professors for Bengal Poll Duty

Key Points

The Calcutta High Court on 17 April 2026 set aside the Election Commission of India’s decision to appoint assistant and associate professors from government colleges as presiding officers for the 2026 Bengal Election, holding that the move violated the Commission’s own rules.

Justice Krishna Rao ruled that the ECI failed to provide any material evidence to justify deploying college teachers for polling duties, despite repeated directions from the court. The appointments were challenged by members of the West Bengal Government College Teachers’ Association.

The court emphasised that under a 2010 ECI circular, Group A equivalent officers, including university and college teaching staff, should not ordinarily be deployed inside polling stations unless “unavoidable circumstances” are recorded in writing by the District Election Officer.

“The authorities failed to produce any document to show the unavoidable circumstances, on the basis of which the authorities have taken a decision for appointment of the petitioners as Presiding Officers in the polling booth,” the Bench remarked.

Observing that administrative powers must be exercised within the framework of established guidelines, the court held that the Commission’s authority to appoint officials for election duty is not unrestricted. It concluded that the appointments had been made in violation of the 2010 circular and set them aside.

The case was first heard on 13 April 2026, when the court directed the ECI to produce records demonstrating the necessity of appointing professors as presiding officers. When the matter was taken up again on 16 April, the Commission sought additional time but still failed to submit any supporting documents. Even after multiple opportunities, no material was presented to establish that the deployment was unavoidable.

During the hearing, the ECI argued that a later circular issued on 7 June 2023 had introduced a broader framework for staff deployment based on rank, pay, and status, effectively superseding earlier instructions. It also cited logistical challenges, noting that elections across nearly 90,000 polling booths made strict adherence to rank-based deployment difficult.

The court, however, rejected this argument, observing that the 2023 circular did not explicitly override the 2010 directive. It held that the earlier safeguards for senior teaching staff remained in force and could not be bypassed without proper justification.

See Also: ECI Removes 73 Returning Officers in West Bengal as High Court Hears Plea Challenging Sudden Transfer of 79 Top Bureaucrats Ahead of 2026 Assembly Election

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the issue was procedural rather than logistical. They contended that the Commission was required to record specific reasons before assigning Group A officers such as professors to polling booths. They also pointed to inconsistencies in deployment, noting that lower-ranked personnel such as typists and stenographers had been assigned supervisory roles, while professors were posted as presiding officers.

The petitioners further argued that there was no shortage of personnel, citing the availability of 6.8 lakh Group B officers in the state. They maintained that the election process would not be affected by reassigning duties in accordance with guidelines.

The court engaged with concerns about the timing of the petition and its potential impact on the electoral process. The ECI had argued that the plea was filed late and that any interference could disrupt preparations across districts.

“This cannot be an argument. If a case is filed after the election, what will the court do? If the court turns a blind eye to irregularities, they will continue,” Justice Rao replied. The court indicated that procedural compliance could not be set aside on grounds of administrative convenience, even at an advanced stage.

In its final order, the court carved out a limited exception. It clarified that professors who had already undergone training and were willing to perform election duties would not be affected by the ruling. At the same time, it allowed the ECI to assign alternative roles to the petitioners, provided these were consistent with their rank, pay, and status.

The judgment also comes amid broader judicial scrutiny of election-related administrative decisions in West Bengal. During earlier hearings, the court had questioned the ECI’s changing positions on staff deployment and emphasised the need for consistency and transparency in its notifications.

The Bench also raised concerns about last-minute justifications for deviations from established procedures, observing that election planning must be systematic rather than improvised. It noted that citing staff shortages close to polling dates was not sufficient grounds to override existing guidelines without documented reasons.

“It has been seen that the Election Commission is changing its position again and again. According to the notification, EC has made provision for appointing judges as polling officers. Appoint us, we will go and perform the duty. You are changing the rules whenever you want,” Justice Rao remarked.

The ruling is expected to have immediate administrative implications, given that the West Bengal Assembly elections are scheduled to be held in two phases on 23 and 29 April 2026. While the Election Commission retains the authority to appoint presiding officers under the Representation of the People Act, the court’s decision reinforces that such powers must be exercised in accordance with its own rules and with clear justification when exceptions are made.

Suggested Reading: