Electoral roll deletion: Supreme Court declines voting order as SIR appeals proceed in West Bengal

The Supreme Court of India declined to direct voting rights for people whose names were removed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in West Bengal. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said the petition was premature because appeals are pending before appellate tribunals, and it did not comment on the merits of the Election Commission process.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to order voting rights for people whose names were removed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in West Bengal. The court said these voters must await decisions from appellate tribunals. The bench also declined to hear a petition by 13 individuals seeking urgent intervention before the Assembly polls.

The bench included Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The judges said the case was not ready for Supreme Court action. The order noted that petitioners had already moved appellate tribunals. The court added that it was not commenting on the merits of the deletions or appeals.

West Bengal electoral rolls and SIR appeals before tribunals

The order recorded: "Since the petitioners Quaraisha Yeasmin and others have already approached the appellate tribunals... in our considered view, the apprehensions expressed in the petition are premature. If the plea is allowed, then necessary consequences will follow.\" The bench also said it had not expressed any view on the substance of the plea.

The petition claimed the Election Commission was removing names without proper procedure. It also alleged appeals were not being taken up quickly. The Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court has constituted 19 tribunals. These are led by former High Court chief justices and judges. They are meant to decide challenges to deletions.

Justice Bagchi noted that the High Court had already set a framework for appeals. Justice Bagchi said the appeals process began on Monday. The bench said each tribunal faced a heavy workload. It observed that every tribunal now had more than one lakh appeals to manage.

West Bengal elections and Supreme Court view on voting rights

During arguments, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee appeared for the petitioners. Kalyan Banerjee told the court that 16 lakh appeals were pending. Kalyan Banerjee asked that these people should be permitted to vote. The CJI responded that similar logic could apply to disputed inclusions too.

Senior advocate D S Naidu represented the poll panel. D S Naidu told the judges that around 30 to 34 lakh appeals were pending. The petitioners’ side also said the Election Commission had not placed key orders before judicial authorities. The counsel further sought an extension of the freezing date for rolls.

During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel asked: \"If I am not allowed to argue, then what is the use? Will these appeals be decided within a timeframe or just kept extending?\" Justice Bagchi spoke about the value of voting in a democracy. Justice Bagchi said the right is both legal and emotional.

Justice Bagchi said: \"The right to vote in a country you were born in is not just constitutional, but sentimental. It is about being part of a democracy and helping elect a government.\" However, Justice Bagchi said former judges running tribunals should not be burdened by strict timelines. Justice Bagchi added: \"It is not the end justifying the means, but the means justifying the end.\"

Justice Bagchi said: \"We need to protect due process rights. The voter should not be sandwiched between two constitutional authorities,\" and added the court would not block elections now. The bench said elections should be supported, not stopped. It stated: \"Unless and until an enormous number of voters are excluded or it materially affects the election... the election cannot be cancelled,\" and it stressed remedies must be exhausted first.

Assembly elections in West Bengal will be held in two phases on April 23 and 29. Counting is scheduled for May 4. The Supreme Court maintained that the appellate tribunals should decide the pending challenges. It held back from issuing directions that could alter voting eligibility while the tribunal process is underway.

With inputs from PTI