The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the difficulties being faced in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, observing that the same process had been completed smoothly in several other states despite a larger number of deletions. Hearing pleas related to the ongoing revision ahead of the Assembly elections, the court noted that the exercise had not led to major disputes elsewhere. The bench said it would consider requests for extending deadlines at a later stage and fixed the next hearing for April 1.
Court Questions Delays
During the hearing, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the West Bengal government, argued that a large number of claims and objections were still pending and that the deadline for finalising the voter list should be extended. He said the last date for filing nominations for the first phase of polling is April 6, while for the second phase it is April 9, and electoral rules do not permit changes to the voters’ list after nominations close.
Divan requested that authorities be allowed to correct the list until a week before polling so that eligible voters are not left out. He also urged the court to allow those whose claims are pending to vote, noting that their names were included in the draft electoral roll.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi suggested that claims relating to constituencies where the nomination deadline falls on April 6 should be taken up first so that the process can be completed in time.
Other States Completed Process
Heading the two-judge bench, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the SIR exercise had been carried out without major controversy in other states. He noted that in several states more names had been removed from the rolls than in West Bengal, yet the process was completed without difficulty.
Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the Trinamool Congress, said the problems had arisen due to the strict approach adopted by the Election Commission.
Counsel for the Election Commission, senior advocate D.S. Naidu, told the court that the revision involved several practical challenges and submitted a detailed report in a sealed cover, requesting the judges to examine it before the next hearing.
The court also noted that, on its earlier directions, judicial officers are currently handling the hearing of claims and objections related to the revision, and are working continuously without breaks to complete the exercise.