Bengal SIR: Supreme Court calls for robust appeal mechanism

Supreme Court judge Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Monday (April 13) said that in view of the large volume of documents judicial officers performing SIR-related adjudication have to go through within a tight deadline, there was a need for a "robust appellate mechanism" to deal with the appeals of people whose names have been deleted from the electoral rolls.

Volume, deadlines and margin of error

Elaborating further, Justice Bagchi stated that when a person is dealing with 1000 documents a day against a tight deadline, he could not be expected to perform with 100 per cent accuracy, adding that even an accuracy of 70 per cent would be considered “excellent”.

Also Read: SC refuses interim inclusion of unverified voters in West Bengal SIR case

He made the remarks during the hearing of a petition seeking to extend the date of freezing of electoral rolls so that the petitioners can vote in the impending assembly elections, in the event their appeals are allowed. The hearing was being conducted by a bench also comprising of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

"If 10% of the electorate does not vote and the winning margin is more than 10%...what will happen? Suppose the margin is 2% and 15% of the electorate who are mapped could not vote, then maybe, we are not expressing any opinion, but we would definitely have to apply our minds. Please keep this in mind that the concern of a vigilant voter whose name correctly or incorrectly is not in the list is not in our minds," Justice Bagchi told the Election Commission as quoted by Live Law.

Deviation in SIR process

Justice Bagchi further stated that, as for conducting the SIR in West Bengal, the Election Commission, deviating from the process in followed in other states, added the new category of “Logical Discrepancy”.

He pointed out that the ECI also deviated from its stand taken during the SIR in Bihar, as per which persons who were mapped in the 2002 electoral roll need not upload documents.

‘Matter be decided by Tribunal’

At the outset, Surya Kant indicated that the Court was disinclined to step in, observing that the matter ought to be decided by the Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the Election Commission was not cooperating with the Appellate Tribunal, particularly in producing relevant materials.

"When the Bihar SIR was argued, the submissions of ECI were unequivocal that the 2002 list members need not give any document. Please see your written submissions in Bihar case. You had said the 2002 electorate need not give documents,” said Justice Bagchi.

ECI's stand and SC’s response

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the EC, clarified that such individuals were not required to upload documents, except to establish identity with those mapped in the 2002 roll. "Now you are improvising the submissions which you made earlier," Justice Bagchi remarked.

Also Read: SC refuses to set deadline even as Bengal flags 20L exclusions after SIR review

When informed that the rejection rate following SIR adjudication stood at 47 per cent, Justice Bagchi responded, "It's not end justifying means but means justifying the end." He added that the situation should not devolve into a contest between authorities but concern the "voter being sandwiched between two Constitutional authorities."

He further observed, "We employed judicial officers where there was trust deficit. The volume at which they have to do, there is a chance of error. If you go through 1000 documents a day, if the accuracy is 70 percent then the activity should be rated as excellent. There will always be a margin of error. We need to have a robust appellate mechanism and a continuing right."

Right to vote and burden on Tribunals

"Right to vote in a country you were born is not only constitutional but sentimental. It is like you are a part of democracy and help in electing a government," he added, while stressing that appeals must be decided on the "principles of inclusion." He also noted the burden on tribunals, with 19 bodies expected to hear over a lakh appeals.

Also Read: West Bengal SIR: 47 lakh objections disposed, SC sets April 7 deadline

The Chief Justice reiterated the Court’s position: "We will not entertain this. Better you pursue there (before AT). Once documents have been scrutinised...," declining to intervene. When petitioners’ counsel referred to another tribunal ruling suggesting lack of scrutiny, the Court did not accept the submission, observing that judicial officers could not be undermined.

The petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue appellate remedies. The bench clarified that if the appeals succeed, "necessary consequences shall follow."