West Bengal SIR | SC asks if Malda gherao accused have political background, orders continued security for judicial officers

NIA report in Court, political angle questioned

At the outset, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati placed an interim report of the NIA before the Court, stating that further arrests had been made and technical examinations carried out. She submitted that the investigation was ongoing, while counsel for the State confirmed that full cooperation had been extended.

Recording this, the CJI Surya Kant stated, “In the next phase, we would like to know is there any political background of these persons specified. This is not an academic exercise… This has to be taken to a logical conclusion.”

Court praises officers as 60 lakh cases done

The Court took on record a communication from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, noting that over 60 lakh objections had been adjudicated and only a small number remained pending due to technical reasons. It also recorded that appellate tribunals commenced functioning from 13 April.

Placing its appreciation on record, the Court observed that judicial officers had worked even on weekends, without taking leaves and that the Chief Justice had put in extra hours alongside regular judicial duties to ensure completion of the exercise. It added that it had “no reason to doubt” that former Chief Justices and judges constituting the appellate tribunals would complete the remaining work within a reasonable time.

Security to remain intact for judicial officers

Turning to the issue of safety of judicial officers, the Court took note of concerns highlighted in the High Court’s communication and reiterated its earlier directions. It directed that the security already provided to judicial officers shall continue and shall not be withdrawn without prior permission of the Court. It also directed that threat perception be assessed, wherever necessary.

The Bench further ordered that deployment of central armed police forces shall continue until further orders. Compliance affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, West Bengal were taken on record, noting that a comprehensive security plan had been put in place and that additional personnel had been deployed. Reiterating the need for continued protection, CJI Surya Kant stated, “Till the elections are over in West Bengal, we would like our judicial officers to be protected.” The Court made it clear that security arrangements were integral to ensuring the integrity of the process and could not be diluted midway.

No voting relief, Court shuts request

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted that a large number of appeals had been filed against exclusion from electoral rolls and sought that such persons be permitted to vote in the upcoming elections. However, the Court declined to grant any such interim relief. The CJI stated, “No question of that. If we allow this…then let us stop the voting rights of people who are included.”

Justice Bagchi clarified that the pendency of an appeal does not suspend the operation of the electoral roll and that once an appeal is decided, necessary consequences would follow. The Bench observed that the statutory mechanism was designed to address such grievances and must be allowed to function in an orderly manner.

Court backs tribunal process

The Court noted that nearly 34 lakh appeals were pending and that each appellate tribunal was dealing with more than one lakh cases. It declined to issue directions that would add to the burden on tribunal members or disrupt the process, and said that parties must pursue remedies before the designated forums. Addressing concerns regarding exclusions and their potential impact, Justice Bagchi explained the Court’s approach, stating, “Courts have intervened to promote fair elections. Not to interdict,” and noted that the present exercise must be seen in that light. He pointed out that in a process involving scrutiny at such scale, a margin of error is inevitable and cannot, by itself, justify halting the electoral process.

He further observed that the appellate mechanism had been put in place precisely to address such errors and to ensure that due process rights are protected. The Bench also indicated that the impact of exclusions would have to be assessed in context, particularly in terms of whether they materially affect election outcomes, while clarifying that no final view was being expressed at this stage.

Court declines intervention, asks parties to approach tribunals

In a connected matter concerning the functioning of appellate tribunals under the  Bengal SIR exercise, Counsel for the petitioners submitted that appeals were not being taken up and sought extension of the freezing date, contending that a large number of excluded voters would otherwise be left without an effective remedy. The Court declined to intervene, directing the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the tribunals. The Chief Justice stated, “Tribunals cannot be blackmailed like this. We are not to decide this. Tribunal will decide.”

Addressing concerns regarding the impact of exclusions on the electoral process, Justice Bagchi observed that such questions would depend on the scale and effect in a given case. He stated, “If 10% of the electorate does not vote and the winning margin is more than 10%, what will happen? Suppose the margin is 2% and 15% of the electorate who are mapped could not vote, then maybe we would have to apply our minds.”

When it was further argued that adjudicating officers had not recorded reasons in certain cases, the Court described the plea as premature and declined to cast doubt on the work of judicial officers, noting that they had undertaken a “commendable job” in dealing with a large volume of cases.