The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed litigants, including West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, to approach the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to resolve grievances concerning the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while the SIR process has been conducted smoothly across the rest of the country, West Bengal remains the sole state where the exercise has been mired in litigation and controversy.
The apex court noted that many of the issues raised by the petitioners were administrative in nature. The bench emphasized that the Calcutta High Court had already been entrusted with the supervision of logistical aspects of the revision process.
“There is hardly any litigation (in other states) now. I think there are states where after the SIR, the (exclusion) rate is higher,” the Chief Justice remarked, contrasting the situation in West Bengal with other regions. “These are issues which can be taken up before the Chief Justice of the High Court.”
Representing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan raised concerns regarding the tight timelines of the revision process. He referenced the court’s March 10 order, which established a framework for handling claims and objections.
Divan highlighted a potential crisis for candidates whose names are currently under adjudication. Since electoral rolls must be frozen seven days prior to polling, he argued that some individuals might be unable to file their nominations within the stipulated deadlines if the adjudication process is delayed.
In a separate submission, Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee pointed out that the complete supplementary list of voters had not yet been made available. He suggested that providing soft copies to political parties would facilitate necessary scrutiny and ensure transparency.
Responding to the transparency concerns, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission (EC), stated that the poll panel is willing to publish supplementary lists on a daily basis to keep stakeholders informed.
The Supreme Court took note of the requests to extend the deadlines for freezing the electoral rolls and indicated that it might consider such an extension in the future. For now, however, the primary venue for resolving specific procedural disputes remains the Calcutta High Court.
