Calcutta High Court Strikes Down ECI's Requisition of College Professors for Election Duty
The Calcutta High Court delivered a significant ruling on Friday, quashing the Election Commission of India's (ECI) requisition of assistant professors from state colleges for duty as presiding officers in polling stations. Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over the case, strongly criticized the election body for failing to demonstrate any documented "unavoidable" circumstances justifying the deployment of academic staff for electoral responsibilities.
Court Questions ECI's Preparation and Documentation
In his detailed order, Justice Rao emphasized that the Election Commission had been given multiple opportunities to produce documentation showing the unavoidable circumstances that necessitated appointing assistant professors as presiding officers. The judge pointedly questioned the ECI's preparedness, noting that election planning typically spans two years, allowing ample time for proper staffing formulations.
"The EC has been preparing for the election for two years," Justice Rao told the commission's counsel during proceedings. "They have to make a formulation on how it is to be done, which person has to be called for, which person is eligible for which post. All of a sudden you are sending notice… If it's a necessity, you have to make an appointment. But here you have to show what were the unavoidable circumstances."
Exemption for Already Trained and Willing Professors
Importantly, the court's order includes a crucial exemption: it will not apply to assistant professors who have already completed their training and demonstrated willingness to assume the presiding officer positions. This nuanced approach acknowledges those educators who had already committed to the electoral process while protecting others from what the court deemed improper requisition.
ECI's Defense and Existing Circulars
The Election Commission's counsel defended the requisition by highlighting the massive logistical requirements of the electoral process, stating that "there are 90,000 booths and 1,80,000 to 1,90,000 presiding officers are needed to be kept ready." The counsel emphasized that duty assignments were issued on March 19, with the writ petition filed subsequently on April 8.
Reliance was placed on a circular dated June 7, 2023, which clarifies that District Election Officers (DEOs) should consider pay, rank, and status when creating seniority lists for election duty assignments, with randomization following established detailed instructions.
Historical Circular Contradicts Current Practice
Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, arguing against the requisition, referenced a crucial circular from February 16, 2010, which explicitly states that "Group A equivalent senior officers including teaching staff of universities and colleges should not be drafted for 'polling duties' in polling station premises without specific reasons to be recorded in writing by the DEO where such appointment becomes unavoidable."
This historical directive created a clear precedent that academic staff should generally be exempt from polling station duties unless documented, unavoidable circumstances justify their deployment—a standard the court found the ECI failed to meet in the current case.
Broader Implications for Election Administration
The ruling underscores the tension between the Election Commission's operational needs during massive electoral exercises and the protection of academic professionals from being arbitrarily drafted for non-academic duties. The court's insistence on proper documentation and adherence to established protocols represents a significant check on administrative discretion in election management.
This decision may influence how election authorities across India approach staff requisitioning for future polls, potentially requiring more rigorous justification when diverting professionals from their primary occupations to election-related responsibilities.
