The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in a petition filed by a group of voters regarding the deletion of names from West Bengal’s electoral rolls ahead of the upcoming assembly elections. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi characterized the plea as “premature,” emphasizing that aggrieved citizens must first exhaust the remedies available through established appellate tribunals.
The ruling comes at a critical juncture as West Bengal prepares for a two-phase election scheduled for April 23 and April 29, with counting set for May 4.
The petition was brought forward by Quaraisha Yeasmin and 12 others who alleged that the Election Commission (EC) had summarily deleted their names during the Special Institutional Revision (SIR). The petitioners argued that the EC failed to follow due process and that their appeals against these deletions were not being addressed in a timely manner. Their counsel sought an extension of the “freezing date” for electoral rolls, questioning whether the appeals would ever be decided within a functional timeframe.
Representing the poll panel, Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu informed the court of the massive scale of the administrative challenge, noting that approximately 30 to 34 lakh appeals are currently pending.
While the court acknowledged the gravity of the right to vote, it maintained that judicial intervention at this stage could disrupt the election process. Justice Joymalya Bagchi offered a poignant reflection on the nature of suffrage in a democracy.
“The right to vote in a country you were born in is not just constitutional, but sentimental,” Justice Bagchi observed. “It is about being part of a democracy and helping elect a government.”
However, the bench noted that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has already taken proactive steps by setting up 19 special tribunals, headed by former High Court chief justices and judges, to handle these specific disputes. These tribunals began their proceedings on Monday.
The bench expressed concern over the sheer volume of cases, noting that every tribunal is currently tasked with handling over one lakh appeals. Despite this burden, the court refused to set rigid adjudication timelines that might overwhelm the former judges manning the tribunals.
“We need to protect due process rights. The voter should not be sandwiched between two constitutional authorities,” Justice Bagchi stated, adding that while the process must be protected, the court would not “interdict” or stop the election process at this stage.
The Chief Justice emphasized that judicial intervention is intended to “promote elections, not interdict them.” The bench concluded that unless an enormous number of voters are excluded in a way that “materially affects” the election, the scheduled polls must proceed.
