New Delhi: The Trinamool Congress on Monday told the Supreme Court that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal had materially affected the outcome of Assembly elections in several constituencies, claiming that the number of deleted voters exceeded the margin of victory in at least 31 seats won by the BJP.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions challenging the SIR exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Trinamool Congress leaders, submitted that in several constituencies, the number of voters deleted during the SIR adjudication process was higher than the victory margin between the BJP and Trinamool candidates.
Referring to the Jangipara Assembly constituency, Banerjee said that BJP candidate Prasenjit Bag had won by a margin of 862 votes, whereas more than 5,000 names were deleted from the electoral rolls during the SIR exercise.
“My candidate lost by 862 votes, but 5,550 names were deleted. This Court had indicated that if the vote difference is less than the deletion of names, then this court will look into it,” he submitted.
The senior counsel further claimed that the overall vote gap between the Trinamool and BJP in the state was around 32 lakh votes, while nearly 35 lakh appeals against voter deletions were still pending before appellate tribunals constituted pursuant to the apex court’s earlier directions.
Referring to an earlier observation made by the Supreme Court, Banerjee argued that cases where the winning margin was lower than the number of deleted voters warranted judicial scrutiny.
However, the CJI-led Bench clarified that grievances relating to election outcomes and the alleged impact of voter deletions would require a separate interlocutory application (IA).
However, senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, submitted that issues relating to poll results could only be agitated through election petitions filed under the Representation of the People Act.
Banerjee then requested the apex court to clarify that deletions arising from the SIR exercise could constitute a ground in an election petition.
At this, the bench remarked: “How can we pass such an order?”, stating that the issue could be examined if a proper application containing the relevant details was filed before the apex court.
“For subsequent events, you can file IA. What Mr Naidu says will come as a counter. We will look into it and pass orders,” it added.
The top court also took note of concerns regarding the pendency of appeals filed by voters whose names were deleted from the rolls.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy informed the bench that at the current pace, the appellate tribunals may take several years to dispose of all pending appeals.
“There is a feeling that appellate tribunals will now take four years,” she submitted.
The bench said that expeditious disposal of appeals would remain a priority for the top court.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had refused to stay the SIR exercise in West Bengal but directed the constitution of appellate tribunals to decide objections and claims arising from the revision process. The apex court had also invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to permit publication of the final electoral roll even if adjudication of some cases remained pending, clarifying that voters subsequently restored through supplementary lists would be deemed part of the final rolls.
The controversy surrounding the SIR exercise arose after the then Trinamool government in West Bengal and the ECI locked horns over the revision process, with then Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and party leaders alleging that the exercise disproportionately affected marginalised and vulnerable sections of society and could result in exclusion of lakhs of genuine voters from the electoral rolls.
(IANS)
