The Supreme Court strongly criticised applications questioning the integrity of judicial officers involved in West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. CJI Surya Kant said the Court “will not tolerate” attempts to cast doubt on judicial officers handling the voter verification exercise.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised certain applications filed before it that raised concerns about the pendency of claims before judicial officers who are handling the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that the Court would not allow any attempt that indirectly questions the integrity or impartiality of judicial officers engaged in the electoral roll verification process.
At the beginning of the hearing, the Bench expressed serious displeasure over the filing of such applications. The Court observed that the pleas appeared to show a lack of trust in judicial officers who have been entrusted with a sensitive responsibility.
“Your application is premature and it shows as if you don’t have trust. How did you dare such applications are filed? No one should dare question the judicial officers. As a Chief Justice of India, I will not tolerate this,”
the Chief Justice told the applicants.
The Court was hearing a batch of petitions related to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The exercise is being conducted with the involvement of several judicial officers to verify claims and objections relating to voter inclusion.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court suggested the creation of an appellate mechanism to deal with disputes arising from decisions taken by judicial officers during the revision exercise. The Court said that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court may constitute a special appellate bench consisting of either former judges or sitting judges to hear such appeals.
“We leave it to the Chief Justice (of High Court) to decide how many judges shall be there in the appellate bench,”
CJI Kant said.
The Bench clarified that if a judicial officer rejects a person’s claim to be included in the electoral rolls, the affected individual can challenge the decision before the appellate bench constituted by the High Court.
To ensure smooth functioning of this mechanism, the Court directed that all expenses related to the appellate body and the officers involved in the process will be borne by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
“High Court Chief Justice is requested to fix the honorarium payable to former justices or present judges and all costs shall be borne by the election commission of India. Similarly honorarium shall be fixed for the service of former judicial officers especially when 200 such officers are from neighboring states,”
the Bench said.
The Supreme Court also directed the Election Commission to issue an official notification regarding the constitution of the appellate body.
Earlier, the apex court had ordered the deployment of judicial officers to assist in the revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal. Judicial officers from West Bengal, Odisha and Jharkhand have been engaged in the SIR exercise being carried out by the Election Commission of India.
The Court had taken this step on February 20 after observing that there appeared to be a trust deficit between the Election Commission of India and the West Bengal government. To ensure transparency and credibility in the process, the Court had directed that district judges, additional district judges and even retired judges should be involved in conducting the revision exercise.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy informed the Court about the progress of the SIR process. She submitted that around seven lakh claims had already been decided, about sixty-three lakh claims were still under adjudication, and nearly fifty-seven lakh claims remained pending.
Responding to the submissions, the Chief Justice strongly defended the work being carried out by the judicial officers and emphasised that the Court had confidence in them.
“We knew you people will run away when judicial officers are appointed. The High Court Chief Justice has told us 10 lakh claims have been decided,”
he remarked.
CJI Kant again warned against attempts to question the role or integrity of the judicial officers involved in the process.
“Your application is premature and it shows as if you don’t have trust. How did you dare such applications are filed? No one should dare question the judicial officers. As a Chief Justice of India, I will not tolerate this,”
he said.
The Chief Justice also explained the legal consequences of the findings recorded by the judicial officers during the verification exercise.
“If judicial officer prima facie finds that you are not entitled to vote, then you will not vote.”
Following this, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy clarified that the petitioners were not challenging the officers or their authority. She said the concerns raised were only related to voters whose names were currently under scrutiny in the ongoing verification exercise.
According to her submissions, there were around forty-eight lakh “mapped voters” whose names had appeared in the electoral rolls as far back as 2002 and who had participated in elections earlier.
Responding to this concern, the Chief Justice said the very purpose of the Special Intensive Revision was to verify the authenticity of voters and remove ineligible entries from the rolls.
“That is why SIR is there. All genuine will be included. All unauthorised etc will not be there. That is being looked at by the judicial officers. Why should we look into this? Till a day before voting, if the cloud upon a voter is removed then he can vote,”
he said.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also addressed the issue and stressed that the large-scale exercise was aimed at improving the accuracy of electoral rolls rather than punishing any voter.
“We would not have undertaken this humongous exercise if we wanted to penalise anyone.”
He further stated that decisions taken during the revision process regarding inclusion or exclusion of voters would still remain subject to future developments and decisions. He also suggested that the Election Commission should publish a supplementary electoral list reflecting the changes made during the exercise.
The Supreme Court also took note of a communication sent by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court informing the apex court about the progress of the exercise.
According to the communication, as of March 9, a total of 10,16,000 objections had already been disposed of. More than 500 judicial officers are currently working continuously to handle the massive number of claims and objections arising during the revision process.
Reading from the communication, CJI Kant informed the Court that regular video conferences were being conducted with district judges to monitor the progress of the work. He also noted that the leaves of judicial officers involved in the exercise had been cancelled and that many officers were even working on Sundays to ensure timely completion of the task.
The communication also mentioned certain technical issues related to log-in IDs required by judicial officers to access the online portal used for the revision exercise. These problems appeared to have arisen at the level of the Election Commission of India.
Senior Advocate DS Naidu, appearing on behalf of the Election Commission, acknowledged the issue and clarified that it was related to a technical login requirement. He assured the Court that the problem would be resolved immediately.
ALSO READ: West Bengal SIR Row: Supreme Court Lists All Connected Cases for January 19
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to provide complete support to the judicial officers conducting the exercise.
“We expect the ECI to render full assistance and support to the judicial officers in completing the exercise,”
CJI Kant said.
The Court also issued further directions to ensure that the revision process continues without any disruption. It ordered the Election Commission not to introduce any new mandatory step in the process unless it receives approval from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. Additionally, the Commission was directed to immediately address any technical issues affecting the portal used by judicial officers for the revision work.
With these directions, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of maintaining confidence in the judicial officers conducting the electoral roll verification and ensuring that the Special Intensive Revision is completed smoothly and fairly.
Click Here to Read More Reports on West Bengal’s SIR
