The Supreme Court on Monday said that it cannot permit individuals whose appeals against exclusion from the electoral rolls are still pending to vote in the upcoming West Bengal elections, warning that any such direction would create an anomalous situation and disrupt the integrity of the electoral process.
Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi underscored that granting voting rights to those whose eligibility remains under adjudication would lead to untenable consequences.
Also read: Arson, stone-pelting in Noida as wage hike protest turns violent
“What is the question of allowing them to vote? If we allow this, then let us stop the voting rights of people who are included then,” remarked the bench, rejecting a suggestion by senior counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay, who appeared for some of the petitioners in the case.
He urged the court to intervene, saying the people of West Bengal were looking up to the top court for relief. Bandopadhyay submitted that an impression had been created that all claims had been adjudicated, whereas in reality “all voters are under adjudication” following the publication of the April 6 electoral roll, underscoring the uncertainty faced by those excluded. “Are there 34 lakh (3.4 million) people not genuine voters? They are genuine voters,” he argued.
{{/usCountry}}He urged the court to intervene, saying the people of West Bengal were looking up to the top court for relief. Bandopadhyay submitted that an impression had been created that all claims had been adjudicated, whereas in reality “all voters are under adjudication” following the publication of the April 6 electoral roll, underscoring the uncertainty faced by those excluded. “Are there 34 lakh (3.4 million) people not genuine voters? They are genuine voters,” he argued.
{{/usCountry}}Also read: Push to roll out women’s quota in line with Opposition demands: PM Modi
But the bench pointed out that as soon as an appeal is decided, registration officers could immediately amend the rolls, allowing such people to vote.
It also noted the sheer scale of the ongoing exercise, recording that over 34 lakh (3.4 million) appeals have already been filed before appellate tribunals by individuals challenging their exclusion. While clarifying that those whose appeals are allowed, even shortly after the cut-off, would be included in the rolls, the bench said it could not extend that logic to those whose claims remain undecided.
Also read: ‘2 hrs for 45-min drive’: Commuters bear brunt as Noida protest hits traffic
“We cannot create a situation where we burden the appellate tribunal judges,” observed the bench, adding that judicial intervention at this stage must not derail the statutory process already underway.
The bench took note of the “herculean” nature of the SIR exercise, recording that judicial officers have adjudicated over 60.04 lakh (six million) claims and objections, with only a small fraction -- around 1,800, pending due to technical issues. The appellate tribunals, comprising former chief justices and senior high court judges, began functioning formally from April 13 with a standard operating procedure in place.
Expressing confidence in the process, the court said it had “no reason to doubt” that the tribunals would complete the task within a reasonable timeframe and ensure due process.
Also read: Brigadier, son assaulted in Delhi for opposing drinking outside their home
The hearing also covered the court’s ongoing suo motu proceedings concerning the April 1 incident in Malda district, where seven judicial officers, engaged in the SIR exercise, were taken hostage for hours by protesters.
Taking note of a status report filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the bench indicated that the probe must not remain a mere formality. “We want to know if any of these people arrested had any political background. We don’t want this to be an academic exercise. This has to be taken to a logical conclusion,” said the court.
The court reiterated its earlier concern over the incident, which had prompted it to take suo motu cognisance on April 2, when it described the episode as a “calculated” attempt to intimidate judicial officers and undermine the authority of the judiciary.
On his part, senior counsel Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the state director general of police and chief secretary, assured the bench of their complete support to NIA and the chief justice of the Calcutta High Court.
In its order on Monday, the court directed that the security provided to judicial officers must continue without interruption. It made it clear that such protection, which has been augmented by central armed police forces, cannot be withdrawn without its prior permission and, in any case, must remain in place until the entire election process is concluded.
“We appreciate the zeal and enthusiasm of judicial officers,” observed the bench, placing on record its acknowledgment of the extraordinary effort involved in completing the exercise, including officers working weekends and beyond regular hours.
The court also recorded compliance affidavits filed by the West Bengal chief secretary and director general of police, detailing enhanced security arrangements and coordination with central forces.
On April 2, the top court had come down heavily on what it termed a “complete failure of civil and police administration” in handling the Malda incident, where judicial officers were confined for nearly 10 hours without timely intervention from local authorities.
Describing the officers as its “extended hands” in supervising the SIR process, the court had warned that any attempt to obstruct or intimidate them would amount to a direct challenge to its authority and could invite contempt proceedings. It had then directed the deployment of central forces, strict access control at adjudication centres, and transfer of the investigation to a central agency.