New Delhi: Calcutta High Court has criticised the Election Commission of India over its decision to appoint assistant professors from colleges and universities as presiding officers in West Bengal, amidst claims of staff shortages and concerns over procedural consistency in election duties.

According to the Times of India, a Calcutta High Court judge questioned the Election Commission's notifications on appointing assistant professors for poll duty. The court said that judges could also be deployed under Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, and that the commission must produce proper documentation to justify its decisions.

The report also noted the court's concern over repeated changes in Election Commission notifications and its direction to provide supporting records.

According to a report in the Statesman, Justice Krishna Rao criticised what the Election Commission "shifting goalposts" in its approach towards poll duty assignments. The court observed that the commission had earlier indicated that judges could also be appointed as polling officers and directed it to explain the basis for deploying professors.

The report said the judge questioned the frequent changes in the commission's positions during the electoral process.

The Millennium Post reported that the High Court expressed concern over a shortage of polling staff not anticipated before the election schedule was announced.

It also observed that citing a deficit of over 1,000 personnel at the last moment was not a satisfactory justification for deviating from established guidelines, while the Election Commission argued that the appointments were necessitated by logistical constraints close to polling.

West Bengal Assembly elections are scheduled to be held in two phases on 23 and 29 April, with counting to be completed on 4 May. The state's electoral process has been marked by heightened judicial scrutiny compared to previous elections, including over the Election Commission's powers to transfer administrative officers.

Members of the public have been approaching the courts for relief as well. Recently, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed Public Interest Litigations challenging the large-scale transfers of IAS and IPS officers in the state ordered by the Election Commission. As a report in the Indian Express noted, the court ruled that there was no obligation on the Election Commission to provide reasons for such transfers as these were administrative measures meant to ensure free and fair elections.

The most contentious issue has been the disagreements between the Union government and the state government over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. These differences were challenged on grounds of both lack of procedural uniformity and the risk of disproportionate deletion of names from the rolls, amounting to 90 lakh left out of the voting net, with around a third of them (27 lakh) being appealed by individual voters – essentially in limbo. The Supreme Court earlier allowed the revision process to continue while directing safeguards. However, on April 16, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to include voters in a supplementary electoral roll if their appeals against deletion were allowed by Appellate Tribunals before April 21 (for the first phase of polling) or April 27 (for the second phase of polling). Pendency of an appeal would not allow people to vote.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.