The Supreme Court refused to hear a plea challenging the ‘logical discrepancy’ category in West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Election Commission instead of invoking Article 32 jurisdiction.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition challenging the “logical discrepancy” category used during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The Court made it clear that such matters should first be taken to the Election Commission instead of directly approaching the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi questioned the maintainability of the plea and the relief sought by the petitioner. The judges expressed surprise that the petitioner had directly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32, which is meant for enforcement of fundamental rights.
During the hearing, the bench made a strong oral remark, stating, “You want us to decide who is your father, your mother and your brother under an Article 32 petition? Go to the Election Commission,” the bench observed.
The Court indicated that the issues raised in the plea appeared to involve factual verification and administrative processes, which fall within the domain of the Election Commission of India.
The petition was filed by Md Zimfarhad Nowaj, who sought directions declaring that the ‘logical discrepancy’ criterion adopted in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal was ultra vires Articles 14 and 324 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission.
The petitioner also challenged a notice issued to him by the Election Commission under the impugned ‘logical discrepancy’ category. He argued that the criterion was arbitrary and unconstitutional, and that it led to wrongful issuance of notices to voters during the revision of electoral rolls.
However, the Supreme Court was not inclined to examine the issue in a writ petition under Article 32 at this stage. The bench suggested that the petitioner should first approach the appropriate authority, namely the Election Commission, which is empowered under Article 324 to supervise and manage electoral processes, including revision of electoral rolls.
The Court’s refusal to entertain the plea highlights its consistent approach that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for statutory remedies or administrative mechanisms available under election laws.
By directing the petitioner to approach the Election Commission, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that electoral roll disputes and related verification issues are primarily to be handled by the poll body.
The matter thus ends, for now, with the apex court declining to intervene in the Special Intensive Revision process in West Bengal, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue remedies before the Election Commission in accordance with law.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Election Commission
