'Voters have right to remain on rolls, we can't be blinded by election': Supreme Court during West Bengal SIR case

New Delhi: Supreme Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Monday expressed concern over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of electoral rolls in West Bengal, stressing the need for a robust appellate mechanism to consider appeals filed by those removed from the electoral rolls.

What is the case?

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Monday was hearing a writ petition filed by voters whose appeals against exclusion from the electoral rolls are pending before appellate tribunals.

What did the court say?

Justice Bagchi specifically highlighted that in the West Bengal case, the Election Commission introduced a new category called "logical discrepancy," different from the process followed in other states.

He also noted that the Election Commission deviated from the position taken in the Bihar SIR case, which had stated that individuals included in the 2002 voter list would not be required to upload documents.

"Voters have a continuing right to remain on election rolls. The right to remain a voter in the country in which you were born is not only a constitutional right, but also an emotional one. We need to protect it. We cannot get blinded by the dust and fury of impending elections," the Supreme Court bench said.

What did court ask the Election Commission?

According to a Live Law report, Justice Bagchi told the Election Commission, "What if 10 per cent of voters do not vote and the margin of victory is more than 10 per cent...? Suppose the margin is 2 per cent and 15 per cent of the voters marked for voting do not vote, then perhaps we will definitely have to consider this."

The rolls, as per the Election Commission of India (ECI), have been frozen as on April 9.

He clarified that he was not expressing any opinion on the matter. "Please note that the concerns of a vigilant voter whose name, rightly or wrongly, is not on the list, are of no concern to us," he said.

Justice Bagchi also commented on the judicial officers handling the SIR work.
He stated that 100 per cent accuracy cannot be expected from the judicial officers handling the SIR work under highly stressful circumstances. He stated that when someone is handling over 1,000 documents daily within a short timeframe, even 70 per cent accuracy would be considered "excellent." Therefore, he emphasized the need for a robust appellate mechanism. 

However, the Chief Justice expressed reluctance to entertain the petition. He stated, "We will not entertain it. It is better that you pursue it there (before the Appellate Tribunal)." 

The bench dismissed the petition, but kept the appeal avenue open for the petitioners. 

The bench clarified that if the petitioners' appeals are accepted, the necessary decisions will be taken.