Vote taken away, other services shouldn't be: Supreme Court on Bengal SIR appeals
The Supreme Court on Friday sought answers from the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal and the state government
The Supreme Court on Friday sought answers from the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal and the state government over concerns surrounding the appellate process under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, including the fate of nearly 34 lakh pending appeals and alleged denial of welfare benefits to people whose names have been deleted from electoral rolls. Read Full Story A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices on a Public Interest Litigation filed by Prasenjit Bose, Chairperson of the SIR Committee of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee. The petition has sought directions to streamline the appellate process before the tribunals, disclose relevant data, publish the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) being followed by the tribunals and establish a time-bound mechanism for disposing of the appeals. ‘34 LAKH APPEALS PENDING, ONLY 38,000 HEARD’ Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that around 34 lakh appeals were pending before the Appellate Tribunals, while only about 38,000 had been heard so far. He argued that the figures made it necessary for the court to issue directions to make the appellate process more efficient. Sankaranarayanan also said that around 70 per cent of the appeals heard by the tribunals had been allowed, making it important to establish a minimum documentary threshold to speed up the disposal of cases.
He further said that the Supreme Court had earlier directed the formation of an SOP for tribunals dealing with SIR appeals, but the SOP had not been made public. "With almost 40 lakh plus appeals pending, there are serious concerns," he said. The lawyer also raised practical concerns over the functioning of the tribunals, saying there were 19 tribunals, of which two judges had resigned. He added that there was no formal website and tribunal orders were not being uploaded, leading to discrepancies and delays. "People whose cases are pending cannot cite other cases as precedent. We don't know the SOP they are following," Sankaranarayanan said. The Chief Justice pointed out that the tribunals were under the supervision of the Calcutta High Court, though not under its administrative control, and were being assisted by the High Court. ‘DELETION FROM VOTER ROLLS DOES NOT MEAN LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP’ A key issue during the hearing was the impact of deletion from electoral rolls on a person's access to government services. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the court had already made it clear that if the ECI had concerns about a person's citizenship, the matter had to be referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs for consideration under the Citizenship Act. "ECI is not an authority with regard to citizenship status," the court observed.
The BriefWire