Supreme Court Highlights West Bengal's Distinctive SIR Litigation Pattern
The Supreme Court made a significant observation on Tuesday, noting that while the Summary Revision of Electoral Rolls (SIR) has been conducted smoothly in other states, it is West Bengal that has generated a substantial spate of litigation related to electoral roll revision. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized this point during proceedings.
Comparative Analysis with Other States
The bench explicitly stated, "There are many competitive complex issues in other states. Yet, SIR has been conducted so smoothly despite equally complicated issues. But there has not been any such spate of litigation. There are states - Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh - where the deletion rate is much higher." This comparison underscores the unique situation in West Bengal, where electoral roll revision has become particularly contentious.
The court maintained its view that West Bengal represents a distinct case in the SIR exercise. This perspective persisted even when senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee argued that the 'logical discrepancy' ground was not applied uniformly across other states. The bench referenced a recent article indicating that except for West Bengal, every other state governed by different political parties has experienced smooth SIR implementation.
Judicial Intervention and Electoral Process
In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deploy judicial officers from West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Odisha. These officers, operating under the supervision of the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice, serve as electoral officers to adjudicate claims for inclusion in the voter list, particularly for names categorized under 'logical discrepancy' or 'unmapped' classifications.
Representing West Bengal, senior advocates Shyam Divan, Kalyan Banerjee, and Menaka Guruswamy presented concerning statistics. Out of approximately 60 lakh claims, only 27 lakh have been adjudicated by the judicial officers to date. They expressed apprehension that the remaining claims are unlikely to be decided before critical deadlines: April 6 (the last date for nomination for the first phase of polling on April 23) and April 9 (the last date for nomination for constituencies voting in the second phase on April 29).
Proposed Solutions and Practical Challenges
The legal team for West Bengal proposed extending the publication of supplementary voter lists—containing names cleared after scrutiny—to April 16 and April 22 respectively for the two-phase voting. They requested that voter lists not be frozen on the last date for filing nominations to accommodate ongoing adjudications.
The bench acknowledged the tremendous effort of judicial officers, noting they are working day and night without taking a single day of leave. The court suggested that improvements in carrying out scrutiny work should be better presented before the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice. Additionally, the bench proposed that the Election Commission could assist by prioritizing adjudication of claims for constituencies voting in the first phase, followed by those in the second phase.
A specific grievance regarding 14 candidates nominated by different political parties appearing in the doubtful voter category was highlighted for priority adjudication. Senior advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, informed the Supreme Court that a suggestion has been made to the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to publish names cleared for inclusion daily through supplementary voter lists.
Procedural Considerations and Infrastructure
When Banerjee raised the issue of judicial officers providing reasons for claim rejections to affected persons, the bench clarified that such reasons cannot be supplied at this time due to procedural constraints. The Supreme Court also suggested that the Election Commission could utilize available spaces in the West Bengal Judicial Academy to house tribunals headed by former High Court judges. These tribunals would hear appeals against the exclusion of names from voter lists, potentially streamlining the process.
The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearing on this matter for April 1, indicating ongoing judicial oversight of this critical electoral process in West Bengal.
