New Delhi: Noting the “trust deficit” between the West Bengal government and the Election Commission over the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the Supreme Court Friday issued an extraordinary order that judicial officers will be deployed to scrutinise claims and objections filed by electors.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said it was forced to make this temporary arrangement due to lack of consensus between the West Bengal government and the Election Commission of India regarding state officials who should work with the poll body’s SIR team.
On the last hearing, after being informed that exclusions on the ground of logical discrepancy were primarily on account of linguistic reasons, the court had advised the West Bengal government to allocate some of its officials to assist the team of ECI officials working in the field.
On Friday, when the CJI’s bench took up the case to know the progress made subsequent to its orders, ECI counsel, senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu complained that the West Bengal government had not complied with the court directions.
He said when ECI reached out to the state for qualified electoral registration officers (EROs), it was told to wait for further communication. He said the state was offering unqualified officers for the task.
Disappointed to see that the state took a week to respond to ECI’s letter, the bench proceeded to pass the order to let judicial officers determine the veracity of the pending claims.
“There is an unfortunate blame game of allegations and counter allegations which shows trust deficit between two constitutional functionaries – that is the State government and the Election Commission of India. Now the process is stuck at the stage of claims and objections of the persons who have been included in the logical discrepancy list,” said the bench.
“Most of the persons to whom notices were issued have submitted their documents in support of their claim for inclusion in the voter list. These claims are required to be adjudicated in a quasi-judicial process by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs),” the court remarked.
In its attempt to ensure a “fair” adjudication of the pending claims, the court requested the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to spare some serving and former judicial officers, with “impeccable integrity,” to revisit or dispose of the claim.
“In order to ensure fairness in adjudication of genuineness of documents submitted and consequent inclusion or exclusion in voter list, we are left with hardly any other option but to request Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to spare some serving judicial officers along with some former judicial officers in the rank of Additional District Judge or District Judges who can then in each district aid in disposal or revisiting of the claims under the logical discrepancy list,” the court order said.
Each officer shall be assisted by the ECI and officials of the state government deputed to for the purpose, the order said.
Since the direction is expected to impact the ongoing judicial cases pending before judges who would be deputed for the SIR exercise, the CJI’s bench directed Calcutta High Court Chief Justice along with a committee of judges, the Registrar General, and the principal district judges to let cases where interim orders exist to alternate court for a week or 10 days.
“Please cooperate with the High Court. Please create an environment for them to function. Imagine what will happen if the SIR process is not completed. Then what happens,” the court told the parties, as it asked the ECI officials to meet the Calcutta HC Chief Justice Saturday and prepare the mechanism for the proposed exercise underlined by the SC.
During the hearing, the court took exception to the state government not providing competent Group A officers.
This prompted the bench to remark, “There is a sense of hesitancy on both ends. We propose that judicial officers can aid and take the process to a logical conclusion.”
The bench then told the senior counsel appearing for the state that their client was obligated to nominate officers who perform the duty of SDO, SDM and that it was not for the court to individually determine the status and ranks of officials now deployed by the state.
The bench will now take up the case in the first week of March. It, however, allowed the ECI to publish its final list on 28 February, but added a caveat that it would not be taken as a final one and that a supplementary list shall be published.
Publication of the list would not stop the determination exercise started by the judicial officers, the court clarified. Rather, whatever claims would be decided would have to be a part of the list that will be published on 28 February, it further said.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: On Bengal voter rolls, ‘parent with 389 kids, a grandparent younger than 40’. EC defends SIR in SC