E-Paper
‘How did you dare': What sparked CJI's sharp reaction during West Bengal SIR hearing in Supreme Court?
The CJI-led Supreme Court reacted sharply to the applications filed before it alleging pendency of claims before judicial officers given the task of SIR in WB.
Hearing a batch of pleas related to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reacted sharply to the applications filed before it alleging pendency of claims before judicial officers given the task of SIR of electoral rolls in the state and asked “how dare” it happen.
Asking the state government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure logistical support is provided to judicial officers, the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated the top court would not tolerate attempts to question the integrity of judicial officers.
“Your application is premature and it shows as if you don’t have trust. How did you dare such applications are filed? No one should dare question the judicial officers. As a Chief Justice of India, I will not tolerate this,” law portal Bar and Bench quoted CJI Kant as saying to the applicants.
Special bench led by HC chief justice
The three-judge bench said that Calcutta high court Chief Justice Sujoy Paul may constitute a special bench of former or sitting judges to hear appeals challenging decisions taken during the SIR exercise in West Bengal.
The bench said the judicial officers, deployed in the SIR process, so far have dealt with 10.16 lakh objections and claims of those facing deletion from the electoral rolls, reported PTI news agency.
The bench asked the poll body to ensure that no mandatory step, which can disrupt the SIR process, is introduced, unless approved by the Calcutta high court chief justice.
It said technical disruptions in the EC's portal shall be looked into to ensure that no such disruptions take place.
The bench directed the creation of new login IDs for judicial officers to ensure smooth revision of electoral rolls, while noting that decisions of the judicial officers cannot be examined in appeals by any administrative officers of the Election Commission.
