Supreme Court Rebukes West Bengal Government Over Electoral Roll Revision Delays
The Supreme Court of India delivered a sharp rebuke to the West Bengal government on Friday for its persistent attempts to delay the completion of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the state's electoral rolls. The court expressed frustration with what it termed "vague and irrelevant" reasons being presented to stall the process.
Judicial Officers Deployed to Expedite Process
In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court had previously invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deploy judicial officers from Jharkhand and Odisha to oversee the revision process. This intervention was aimed at expediting the work that traditionally falls under the Election Commission's domain.
"Please do not come to the court with vague reasons and try to delay the process," Chief Justice Surya Kant stated emphatically during the hearing. "Every day there cannot be an irrelevant reason here and there. There must be an end to it."
The Chief Justice reminded the state government that the court had already gone beyond its usual mandate to ensure the electoral roll revision proceeded efficiently. "We went beyond our mandate by using exclusive powers under Article 142 to direct deployment of judicial officers to carry out a task which is essentially in the EC domain," he noted.
Controversy Over Training of Judicial Officers
The hearing took a contentious turn when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, raised concerns about Election Commission officials providing training to the deployed judicial officers. Sibal argued that this arrangement violated the Supreme Court's original directive that the modalities would be decided by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.
"Strange things have happened," Sibal told the bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. "EC officials are giving training to judicial officers, who were deployed by the Calcutta HC CJ, on which documents submitted with claims of voters are to be accepted."
The bench, however, firmly rejected this interpretation. "When we said the HC CJ will decide the modalities, we meant he would decide which judicial officer is to be deployed where and what facilities were to be provided to him," the court clarified. "The judicial officer alone will decide the pending claims and validity of documents submitted by the voters."
Court Defends Election Commission's Role
Justice Bagchi specifically addressed the training issue, questioning who else would provide necessary guidance to the judicial officers if not the Election Commission. "If the EC officials will not give training to judicial officers, who else will?" he asked rhetorically.
The judge emphasized the clarity of the court's original order: "Our order is as clear as daylight. We gave an alien responsibility to the judicial officers to expedite SIR. Both the state government and the EC must provide and create a congenial atmosphere for them to work."
State Chief Secretary's Voting Rights Questioned
During the proceedings, Sibal revealed an unusual development - the voting rights of West Bengal's Chief Secretary were being questioned by the Election Commission. "The state chief secretary is here as unfortunately her voting rights are being put to question by the EC," he informed the court.
The bench responded by urging cooperation rather than confrontation. "Ask your chief secretary to work in tandem with the EC and judicial officers for expeditious completion of SIR," the court advised.
Procedure for Supplementary Voter Lists
Sibal raised another procedural concern regarding the publication of supplementary voter lists. He argued that the Election Commission should publish these lists as soon as judicial officers decide to include clusters of voters' names, rather than waiting until after the final voter list publication on February 28.
The bench assured that the Special Intensive Revision would proceed strictly according to the court's established orders, which already specify which documents should be accepted for scrutiny of voter claims. The court's firm stance underscores its commitment to ensuring the electoral roll revision proceeds without further unnecessary delays or procedural objections.
