Supreme Court keeps Bengal SIR hearing on schedule
The Supreme Court has declined to advance its hearing on appeals linked to West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, keeping the matter for October 5, a day before Assembly bypolls in Nandigram and Rejinagar.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana rejected the request for an earlier hearing on Monday after counsel raised concerns that thousands of electoral-roll appeals affecting voters in the two constituencies remained unresolved.
Counsel told the court that the matter had earlier been expected to come up on September 29 but was no longer on that day’s cause list and was instead being shown tentatively for October 5. Polling in Nandigram and Rejinagar is scheduled for October 6.
“These are only by-elections. That is all,” Chief Justice Kant said while declining the request. The bench indicated that it would take up the matter on October 5.
The request for urgency focused on appeals against decisions concerning inclusion and exclusion of names following the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, undertaken in West Bengal. Counsel submitted that more than 18,000 appeals connected with the two poll-bound constituencies remained pending and argued that affected electors risked losing another opportunity to vote.
The lawyer told the bench that some of the people concerned had already been unable to participate in the Assembly elections while their electoral status remained unresolved. The submission was made to press the case for judicial consideration before voting in the two constituencies.
The request did not ask the bench to decide the merits of the SIR challenges on Monday. It concerned only the timing of the next hearing, with counsel seeking enough time before polling for the court to address the unresolved appeals and their electoral consequences.
The wider pendency before the appellate tribunals is substantially larger. Figures placed by the Election Commission of India before the Supreme Court show that 38,31,429 appeals had been filed following the revision exercise. Of these, 1,26,194 had been decided, leaving 37,05,235 pending when the data were furnished.
The Commission’s figures show that 22,21,118 appeals were filed by people challenging the exclusion or deletion of their names from the electoral rolls, while 16,10,311 challenged the inclusion of names. The data were submitted after the Supreme Court sought details on the scale and disposal of appeals before the tribunals.
The appellate mechanism was established under the Supreme Court’s supervision to deal with disputes generated by the revision. The Election Commission constituted 19 single-member appellate tribunals, headed by former chief justices and judges of high courts, for West Bengal’s 23 districts. The tribunals began functioning in April.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed that electors dissatisfied with decisions made during adjudication of claims and objections could approach the appellate tribunals. The system was intended to provide judicial scrutiny of decisions affecting whether names remained on, were restored to, or were removed from the electoral rolls.
The scale of pending cases has since become a central issue before the court. The Election Commission has suggested increasing the number of tribunals to accelerate disposal, telling the court that the existing arrangement faces a large volume of appeals. Its filing proposed expanding the mechanism in a manner corresponding to the state’s parliamentary constituencies.
The October 6 bypolls have brought the pace of adjudication into sharper focus because unresolved appeals could affect whether individual applicants are on the rolls used for polling. The court, however, did not accept that the approaching by-elections required the scheduled hearing to be brought forward.
The matter forms part of continuing proceedings over the SIR and the adjudicatory framework created to handle disputes arising from it. The Supreme Court has sought periodic information on the functioning of the tribunals and the number of cases disposed of, while hearing applications connected with the revision.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana rejected the request for an earlier hearing on Monday after counsel raised concerns that thousands of electoral-roll appeals affecting voters in the two constituencies remained unresolved.
Counsel told the court that the matter had earlier been expected to come up on September 29 but was no longer on that day’s cause list and was instead being shown tentatively for October 5. Polling in Nandigram and Rejinagar is scheduled for October 6.
“These are only by-elections. That is all,” Chief Justice Kant said while declining the request. The bench indicated that it would take up the matter on October 5.
The request for urgency focused on appeals against decisions concerning inclusion and exclusion of names following the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, undertaken in West Bengal. Counsel submitted that more than 18,000 appeals connected with the two poll-bound constituencies remained pending and argued that affected electors risked losing another opportunity to vote.
The lawyer told the bench that some of the people concerned had already been unable to participate in the Assembly elections while their electoral status remained unresolved. The submission was made to press the case for judicial consideration before voting in the two constituencies.
The request did not ask the bench to decide the merits of the SIR challenges on Monday. It concerned only the timing of the next hearing, with counsel seeking enough time before polling for the court to address the unresolved appeals and their electoral consequences.
The wider pendency before the appellate tribunals is substantially larger. Figures placed by the Election Commission of India before the Supreme Court show that 38,31,429 appeals had been filed following the revision exercise. Of these, 1,26,194 had been decided, leaving 37,05,235 pending when the data were furnished.
The Commission’s figures show that 22,21,118 appeals were filed by people challenging the exclusion or deletion of their names from the electoral rolls, while 16,10,311 challenged the inclusion of names. The data were submitted after the Supreme Court sought details on the scale and disposal of appeals before the tribunals.
The appellate mechanism was established under the Supreme Court’s supervision to deal with disputes generated by the revision. The Election Commission constituted 19 single-member appellate tribunals, headed by former chief justices and judges of high courts, for West Bengal’s 23 districts. The tribunals began functioning in April.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed that electors dissatisfied with decisions made during adjudication of claims and objections could approach the appellate tribunals. The system was intended to provide judicial scrutiny of decisions affecting whether names remained on, were restored to, or were removed from the electoral rolls.
The scale of pending cases has since become a central issue before the court. The Election Commission has suggested increasing the number of tribunals to accelerate disposal, telling the court that the existing arrangement faces a large volume of appeals. Its filing proposed expanding the mechanism in a manner corresponding to the state’s parliamentary constituencies.
The October 6 bypolls have brought the pace of adjudication into sharper focus because unresolved appeals could affect whether individual applicants are on the rolls used for polling. The court, however, did not accept that the approaching by-elections required the scheduled hearing to be brought forward.
The matter forms part of continuing proceedings over the SIR and the adjudicatory framework created to handle disputes arising from it. The Supreme Court has sought periodic information on the functioning of the tribunals and the number of cases disposed of, while hearing applications connected with the revision.