Supreme Court weighs priority hearings for deleted Bengal voters
The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that it would consider directing electoral tribunals in West Bengal to prioritise appeals from voters whose names were deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed to examine the issue on October 16, following an urgent request from voters seeking restoration of their names before municipal elections expected in Kolkata and Howrah in November.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, acknowledged difficulties confronting the appellate tribunals and indicated that appeals seeking restoration of deleted names could be heard before petitions demanding further deletions.
Chief Justice Kant said the court was examining ways to address the mounting appeals and would consider asking tribunals to defer cases seeking deletion while giving precedence to those seeking inclusion.
The intervention followed submissions by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing affected voters, who warned that prolonged proceedings could prevent eligible electors from participating in another election.
The petitioners sought expedited disposal of appeals or, alternatively, permission for voters whose challenges remained undecided to participate in the forthcoming municipal elections.
Sankaranarayanan argued that waiting until the next scheduled hearing of the broader SIR proceedings could leave insufficient time for resolving appeals before the municipal election process began.
The court initially considered hearing the matter later in October but indicated that it would explore an earlier listing on October 16, given the urgency raised by counsel.
Justice Bagchi acknowledged that the tribunals faced operational difficulties, including problems with the software supporting the appeals process. He indicated that technological arrangements and procedural fairness required further examination alongside the Election Commission.
The court's observations did not constitute a final direction changing the order in which appeals must be heard. That question remains subject to further consideration when the matter returns before the bench.
The scale of unresolved litigation has become a central concern. Figures submitted by the Election Commission to the Supreme Court in September showed that 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed concerning electoral roll inclusions and exclusions.
Of these, approximately 22.21 lakh were filed by voters seeking restoration of deleted names, while about 16.10 lakh challenged the inclusion of names on the rolls.
The Commission also informed the court that approximately 37 lakh appeals remained pending, highlighting the considerable workload facing the appellate system established to examine disputes arising from the revision exercise.
Nineteen tribunals were handling the appeals, while the Election Commission had proposed expanding their number to 42 to accelerate disposal of the accumulated cases.
Bhushan told the bench that approximately 93 per cent of the appeals decided so far had resulted in restoration of deleted voters' names. He cited the figure while seeking faster consideration of outstanding challenges.
The percentage was presented by counsel during the hearing and was not an independent finding announced by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners argued that the high proportion of successful appeals strengthened the case for prioritising voters challenging their exclusion rather than allowing their cases to remain unresolved alongside petitions seeking additional deletions.
Their immediate concern centred on the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Howrah Municipal Corporation elections, which they said were expected during the latter part of November.
The application indicated that approximately 1.7 lakh appeals involving the two municipal areas remained pending, potentially affecting voters seeking to participate in those elections.
Counsel also referred to difficulties encountered during earlier elections, when individuals whose names had been excluded were unable to vote while their appeals remained undecided.
The legal position remains significant because filing an appeal against deletion does not automatically restore a person's eligibility to vote. Electoral registration must satisfy the applicable requirements before a ballot can be cast.
During the West Bengal Assembly elections, the Supreme Court had permitted voters whose appeals were allowed within specified deadlines to participate through supplementary electoral rolls, while clarifying that pending appeals alone did not confer voting eligibility.
The latest application therefore raises separate questions concerning the speed of tribunal decisions and whether interim arrangements might be necessary for electors awaiting adjudication.
Tribunal judges have also flagged shortcomings in the Election Commission's digital appeals platform, including difficulties issuing notices, conducting proceedings and implementing orders restoring names to electoral rolls.
Those operational concerns form part of the wider proceedings examining whether the existing appellate machinery can process the outstanding disputes effectively and within election-related deadlines.
The Election Commission's September affidavit placed the number of appeals challenging inclusion at 16.10 lakh, underscoring the competing categories of cases before the tribunals.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed to examine the issue on October 16, following an urgent request from voters seeking restoration of their names before municipal elections expected in Kolkata and Howrah in November.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, acknowledged difficulties confronting the appellate tribunals and indicated that appeals seeking restoration of deleted names could be heard before petitions demanding further deletions.
Chief Justice Kant said the court was examining ways to address the mounting appeals and would consider asking tribunals to defer cases seeking deletion while giving precedence to those seeking inclusion.
The intervention followed submissions by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing affected voters, who warned that prolonged proceedings could prevent eligible electors from participating in another election.
The petitioners sought expedited disposal of appeals or, alternatively, permission for voters whose challenges remained undecided to participate in the forthcoming municipal elections.
Sankaranarayanan argued that waiting until the next scheduled hearing of the broader SIR proceedings could leave insufficient time for resolving appeals before the municipal election process began.
The court initially considered hearing the matter later in October but indicated that it would explore an earlier listing on October 16, given the urgency raised by counsel.
Justice Bagchi acknowledged that the tribunals faced operational difficulties, including problems with the software supporting the appeals process. He indicated that technological arrangements and procedural fairness required further examination alongside the Election Commission.
The court's observations did not constitute a final direction changing the order in which appeals must be heard. That question remains subject to further consideration when the matter returns before the bench.
The scale of unresolved litigation has become a central concern. Figures submitted by the Election Commission to the Supreme Court in September showed that 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed concerning electoral roll inclusions and exclusions.
Of these, approximately 22.21 lakh were filed by voters seeking restoration of deleted names, while about 16.10 lakh challenged the inclusion of names on the rolls.
The Commission also informed the court that approximately 37 lakh appeals remained pending, highlighting the considerable workload facing the appellate system established to examine disputes arising from the revision exercise.
Nineteen tribunals were handling the appeals, while the Election Commission had proposed expanding their number to 42 to accelerate disposal of the accumulated cases.
Bhushan told the bench that approximately 93 per cent of the appeals decided so far had resulted in restoration of deleted voters' names. He cited the figure while seeking faster consideration of outstanding challenges.
The percentage was presented by counsel during the hearing and was not an independent finding announced by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners argued that the high proportion of successful appeals strengthened the case for prioritising voters challenging their exclusion rather than allowing their cases to remain unresolved alongside petitions seeking additional deletions.
Their immediate concern centred on the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Howrah Municipal Corporation elections, which they said were expected during the latter part of November.
The application indicated that approximately 1.7 lakh appeals involving the two municipal areas remained pending, potentially affecting voters seeking to participate in those elections.
Counsel also referred to difficulties encountered during earlier elections, when individuals whose names had been excluded were unable to vote while their appeals remained undecided.
The legal position remains significant because filing an appeal against deletion does not automatically restore a person's eligibility to vote. Electoral registration must satisfy the applicable requirements before a ballot can be cast.
During the West Bengal Assembly elections, the Supreme Court had permitted voters whose appeals were allowed within specified deadlines to participate through supplementary electoral rolls, while clarifying that pending appeals alone did not confer voting eligibility.
The latest application therefore raises separate questions concerning the speed of tribunal decisions and whether interim arrangements might be necessary for electors awaiting adjudication.
Tribunal judges have also flagged shortcomings in the Election Commission's digital appeals platform, including difficulties issuing notices, conducting proceedings and implementing orders restoring names to electoral rolls.
Those operational concerns form part of the wider proceedings examining whether the existing appellate machinery can process the outstanding disputes effectively and within election-related deadlines.
The Election Commission's September affidavit placed the number of appeals challenging inclusion at 16.10 lakh, underscoring the competing categories of cases before the tribunals.