The Supreme Court said bulk Form 6 submissions during electoral roll revision are not new and objections can be filed as per the law. The Court also directed that all objections in the West Bengal electoral roll revision be decided by April 7.
The Supreme Court of India recently heard a matter related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, where concerns were raised about the bulk submission of Form 6 applications. During the hearing, the Court observed that such incidents are not new and similar situations have happened in previous elections as well.
The issue came up after protests by the Trinamool Congress, which alleged that BJP workers were submitting Form 6 applications in large numbers. Form 6 is used by citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time or when they change their place of residence and need to shift their constituency.
When the matter was heard, the Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi made it clear that such allegations should not be made without proper basis and that the legal process allows objections to be filed if there are issues with electoral roll entries.
The Court observed,
“Happens every time, not the first time. You can raise objections,”
CJI Kant said.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing in the matter, told the Court that in one instance, a person had submitted 30,000 Form 6 applications. He expressed concern about large-scale additions to the electoral roll while the revision process was still ongoing.
He said,
“Supplementary lists are being published now. the recent ECI notification… allows Form 6.. but Form 6 cannot be allowed when adjudication is going on…now bundles of form 6 coming… I am not blaming any political parties,”
the senior counsel said.
However, the Court responded by saying that such concerns were premature and based on assumptions at this stage. The Court made it clear that it was not closing the matter and would examine the situation at the appropriate time.
The Court said,
“We are not closing the case at all. We will see when the time comes,”
the Court added.
Senior Advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI), explained the legal position and said that the law allows inclusion of voters in the electoral roll until the last date of nomination. He emphasized that if a person becomes eligible to vote, their right cannot be denied. He said,
“It can be anyone who becomes 18 even today. If somebody has a right, nobody can thwart it,”
Naidu added.
Bandopadhyay then suggested that all new inclusions in the electoral roll should be made public booth-wise so that people can file objections if needed. At this point, Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified the legal distinction between amendment of electoral rolls and the electoral roll that is finally used for elections.
He explained that even if a person’s name is added later, it does not automatically give them the right to vote in that particular election if the qualifying date has already passed. Justice Bagchi said,
“One is amendment of electoral roll and one is electoral roll which goes for polls. The one which goes for polls is as per the qualifying date given by ECI. So the inclusion of such a person will not give him the right to vote in such an election.”
The Supreme Court had earlier directed that judicial officers be deployed to ensure that the Special Intensive Revision process is completed properly and objections are decided in a timely manner. During the hearing, the Chief Justice informed the Court about the progress made in deciding objections.
He said that the Court had received a letter from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and was satisfied with the progress made so far. The Chief Justice said,
“We have received letter from Calcutta HC Chief Justice. We are happy about facts and figures given. Out of 60,000, 40,000 objections decided till last evening. By April 7 all objections will be decided,”
the CJI said.
During the hearing, Bandopadhyay also raised concerns about training being given to judicial officers, suggesting that such training was not required. The Chief Justice strongly responded and said that such allegations should not be made without basis and clarified that the training was only an orientation program and not related to the merits of the case.
The Chief Justice said,
“Don’t raise frivolous allegations. This is an orientation, that’s all. Not on merit.”
Justice Bagchi also supported this view and said that judicial officers were being asked to perform a task that they had not handled before, and the Court had full confidence in their impartiality and fairness. Justice Bagchi said,
“We have no doubt on their impartiality or unbiasedness,”
the judge added.
The Supreme Court has now listed the matter for further hearing on April 7. The Court also directed that a separate plea seeking an inquiry into poll-related violence in the State be listed on the same date after procedural defects are cured and the other side is given an opportunity to file a response.
The matter is expected to continue on the next date of hearing, where the Court will review the progress of the objection disposal process and other related issues.
Click Here to Read More Reports on West Bengal
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
