West Bengal SIR | SC turns to Calcutta HC for adjudication of LD claims
Challenge to the ECI’s Revision of Electoral Rolls in BiharJudges: Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi J, V.M. Pancholi J
Today, the Supreme Court proposed that serving and former judicial officers from West Bengal take over the adjudication of pending “logical discrepancy” (LD) claims under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi said it would request the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to spare judicial officers of the rank of Additional District Judge to adjudicate and dispose of the claims.
The Bench observed that there were “unfortunate allegations” which clearly depicted a “trust deficit” between two constitutional functionaries: the state government and the Election Commission of India (ECI). At the previous hearing, the Court had extended the timeline for completion of the SIR exercise in the state by one week.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shyam Divan and Kalyan Banerjee appeared for the petitioners. Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu appeared for the ECI.
State–ECI impasse
Sibal submitted that, despite the Court’s 9 February Order extending time and directing the deputation of 8,550 Group B officers, the ECI had stopped the uploading of documents for scrutiny.
The CJI asked the ECI whether any eligible officer had been found. Naidu responded that the ECI had written to the State and was awaiting clarity. However, the Bench expressed dissatisfaction. “We were expecting cooperation by [the] state,” the CJI remarked, questioning the absence of SDM-rank officers. In West Bengal, SDMs are Group A officers.
The CJI noted that EROs perform quasi-judicial functions. “They are obligated under law to pass speaking orders… to reject or accept documents,” he said, adding that “a partially judicially trained mind” was required.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that officers brought in by the ECI had limited familiarity with Bengali. The CJI stressed that both sides must appreciate the sensitivity of the SIR process.
Does SRO override ERO?
Divan alleged that the ECI had introduced a “new species” called special roll observers. He submitted that even after EROs cleared mapped voters’ files, these observers were allegedly reviewing and sending them back “in lakhs”. According to him, they had been given login credentials and were overriding ERO decisions. “Special roll observers cannot trump ERO,” he argued.
The Chief responded that if an ERO had passed an order, that would stand on a different footing, adding that if doubts arose about a document, the ERO could always have it examined. Naidu stated that SROs had been present since the beginning of the SIR.
The Bench indicated that if consensus failed, it would either involve the state judiciary by requesting the Chief Justice of the High Court or direct officers from outside the state to step in.
Disputes over forms and allegations of inaction by police
Banerjee submitted that “not a single Form 6 is being accepted” in West Bengal and that only Form 7 objections were being processed. Divan requested reiteration of earlier directions. Sibal claimed that in 3.5 lakh cases, notices had not been issued and maintained that judicial officers should determine the claims.
The Court directed that all ancillary issues would also be determined by the judicial officers nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Recording allegations that state police had taken no action on complaints relating to violence and intimidation, the Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP), West Bengal, to file a supplementary affidavit detailing complaints received and action taken. Notably, on 9 February, the Court had directed the DGP to file an affidavit regarding ECI’s allegations regarding violence, non-registration of FIRs and destruction of objection records
The matter will be heard in the first week of March.