SC flags high exclusion in Bengal voter roll revision, denies relief

Top court notes high rejection rates in SIR exercise, declines interim relief on appeals, and asks appellate tribunals to frame procedures for handling cases uniformly

The Supreme Court on Monday was informed that a significant number of individuals removed from West Bengal’s electoral rolls remain excluded even after adjudication during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

 

Appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipin Pancholi, senior advocate Shyam Divan said that judicial officers had completed adjudication in over 60 lakh cases but the rate of rejection remained notably high.

 

"Out of these 60 lakh cases, available data of 40 lakh cases indicates that the inclusion rate is about 55 per cent, which is 24 lakh, and the exclusion rate is 45 per cent, which is 20 lakh. The rejection rate appears to be very high despite the judicial safeguards… These were mapped individuals. Almost 7 lakh have already filed and several lakh appeals are in process of being filed. Appellate tribunals are yet to be fully operational," he submitted, adding that the officers deserved acknowledgment for handling the large volume of cases.

 

 

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state, urged that appellate tribunals grant interim relief in cases where exclusions appeared prima facie incorrect. The Bench, however, declined both the request for interim protection and any direction to fix timelines for the disposal of appeals.

 

Justice Bagchi underscored the need to finalise the electoral rolls in view of the impending elections.

 

"Tribunals will go on hearing, and we do not want to rush it, but we need to freeze the list somewhere. One layer of adjudication is done by the judicial officers. Appellate process can take a month or even 60 days, but just because they are mapped does not mean..." he observed.

 

The Court noted that the 19 appellate tribunals are staffed by former chief justices and judges, and chose to leave procedural decisions to them.

 

"We will leave it to the appellate tribunals," the CJI said.

 

At the same time, the Bench directed the constitution of a committee to ensure uniformity in procedures followed by the tribunals.

 

"We feel that to arrive at uniformity of procedure adopted before the 19 appellate tribunals. Thus, we request the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a team of three former senior-most chief justices or judges who shall prescribe the procedure that will be mandatorily followed by all 19 tribunals uniformly. Let the committee prescribe the procedure by tomorrow so that adjudication of appeals can be expedited," it ordered.

 

During the proceedings, the CJI noted that adjudication had nearly concluded.

 

"The letter says in Malda, which had 8 lakh objections, nothing remains pending despite so many difficulties, such as gherao, etc. A bottleneck that has emerged is the real-time e-signatures upload, which is affecting timely closure," he said, referring to a communication from Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court Sujoy Paul.

 

Justice Bagchi flagged procedural concerns arising before appellate forums.

 

"There have been certain cases where documents could not be uploaded online. Then, with no receipt, this issue will again be agitated next before a constitutional court and have the matter remanded. Whoever makes an appeal has raised a grievance that they don't know the reason. You can tell the tribunal to reveal the records," he said.

 

Addressing these concerns, the Court clarified in its order that grievances regarding absence of reasons for rejection could be raised before appellate tribunals.

 

"We request the appellate tribunals to revisit the full record, including reasons given by judicial officers, and that tribunals can form their own process to adjudicate and arrive at their own process," it said.

 

While Justice Bagchi reiterated the need to freeze the rolls, Divan pressed for publication of a supplementary list after appeals are decided. The CJI responded, "Let the former chief justices and judges evolve their own procedure."

 

Senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay argued that those whose names are restored by April 21 should be permitted to vote. The Bench declined to intervene, with Justice Bagchi cautioning, "Appeal is an adjudicatory process on natural justice... appeals will cross lakhs... 19 tribunals put on deadline will create chaos."