The Supreme Court on Monday closely examined the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal, raising concerns over the basis of voter rejections, lack of appellate safeguards, and inconsistencies in the poll body’s stand on electoral rolls.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi repeatedly questioned the framework adopted by the ECI, particularly the introduction of what it described as a logical discrepancy category for identifying doubtful voters.
Justice Bagchi said the process appeared to place voters in a difficult position. “Voter is being sandwiched between authorities… this is not a blame game,” he observed, stressing that the issue was not a contest between institutions but about protecting individual voting rights.
A key concern flagged by the court was the absence or ineffectiveness of appellate mechanisms in dealing with voter exclusions.
“There has to be a continuing right,” Justice Bagchi said, noting that rejections without a meaningful appeal process could leave voters without remedy.
Highlighting the scale of the exercise, he also acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by officials scrutinising documents. “If you go through 1000 documents a day, 70% accuracy may be excellent, margin of error will be there. We need a robust appellate forum,” he said.
Questions over logical discrepancy list
The Bench also drew a distinction between the SIR exercises conducted in West Bengal and Bihar.
Referring to the Bihar process, Justice Bagchi said, “No logical discrepancy list, we have gone through,” indicating that such a category had not been part of the earlier exercise.
In West Bengal, however, the ECI relied on this classification as a basis for rejecting claims, prompting the court to question its origin and legal footing.
2002 electoral roll under scrutiny
Another major issue raised by the Bench was the apparent inconsistency in the ECI’s reliance on the 2002 electoral roll.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that the Commission’s original notification for the SIR did not require voters listed in the 2002 roll to furnish fresh documents. However, rejection reasons in West Bengal appeared to be linked to that very list.
“Your notification did not touch the 2002 list… yet rejection reasons are based on it. Earlier, you said 2002 electors need not give documents,” he said.
When the ECI’s counsel argued that individuals still needed to establish that they were the same persons listed in 2002, the court expressed dissatisfaction.
“Now you are improvising the submissions made earlier,” Justice Bagchi remarked, signalling that the Commission’s position seemed to have shifted during the proceedings.
The Bench made it clear that while maintaining the purity of electoral rolls is important, it cannot come at the cost of due process.
Justice Bagchi emphasised that courts intervene to facilitate elections, not to halt them, but added that the means adopted must be fair and transparent.
He also reflected on the broader nature of voting rights, describing them as both constitutional and deeply personal, tied to an individual’s sense of belonging in a democracy.
Relief declined, tribunal route advised
The court was hearing a plea related to the functioning of appellate tribunals in West Bengal, including allegations that appeals were not being taken up.
However, the Bench declined to intervene and asked the petitioner to approach the appellate tribunal headed by former judge TS Sivagnanam.
When the petitioner sought a time-bound direction for disposal of appeals, the court refused, with CJI Kant observing that it could not place undue pressure on judicial authorities.
The court also said it could not doubt the functioning of judicial officers who had handled the initial stages of the process.
Before concluding, Justice Bagchi stressed that appellate bodies must approach such cases with a focus on inclusion rather than exclusion.
The court’s observations signal a closer judicial scrutiny of the SIR framework, particularly in West Bengal, even as it refrained from issuing immediate directions and left it to the appellate mechanism to address grievances.