Bengal SIR: Told Tribunals are ‘not functioning’, Supreme Court seeks report from Calcutta HC Chief Justice

“There is a practical difficulty. The matter is now listed on April 24. Appellate Tribunals are not functioning. Citizens from thousands of kilometres are not allowed representation. This court’s order is not being followed,” Kamat said.

Initially, CJI Kant expressed the court’s displeasure at the Bengal SIR matter being brought up before it repeatedly, wondering if it was part of some “strategy”. Even as he appeared to disagree with the submissions in this matter, the CJI said the court gets reports and knows what is happening. “It’s not that…Unfortunately, it’s a professional strategy from this side. Every day, you people, one after the other, file…,” the CJI remarked.

Kamat, representing a group of petitioners whose names had been deleted from the rolls in the SIR and who had filed appeals before the Tribunals, said he filed an application seeking an expedited hearing so that their names could appear on the supplementary list. “We will see,” said the CJI.

“There are newspaper reports everywhere that the Appellate Tribunals are not functioning. Lordships’ orders are not being followed. That is my respectful submission,” said Kamat.

“We will get a report from the Chief Justice today itself,” said the CJI.

Later in the day, the court refused to entertain an oral prayer by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who contended that new voters were being added in bulk through Form 6 — the application form for new voters. “Your Lordships did not allow the addition of new voters in this way, using Form 6. And this is being done,” Guruswamy told the bench.

Reiterating the court’s displeasure at the SIR matter being brought before it repeatedly, the CJI said, “We should have constituted a separate bench (to hear petitions arising out of the SIR exercise in West Bengal).”

The CJI said the court cannot take up such matters on oral request and that a proper petition should be filed. “File a petition. We will not see like this,” he said.

Guruswamy said, “We don’t have enough information. The newspapers are reporting.” In response, the CJI said, “We can’t make a fishing inquiry like this.”

Guruswamy said, “Your order is being used to allow these Form 6s to be filed in bulk. The April 13 order pertained to Appellate Tribunals. It wasn’t intended to allow this…If they release the final rolls, we will be able to challenge it. This practice of allowing Form 6s, it has only happened in the state of West Bengal. It will have an outsized impact on elections.”

The court, however, asked her to file a petition. “You challenge something before us…We will examine. We can’t entertain like this,” the CJI said.

On April 13, the Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, allowed voters cleared by Appellate Tribunals to vote in the West Bengal elections, provided their appeals are decided before April 21 and 27, respectively, for the first and second phases.

The court had said that their names will be added through a “supplementary revised electoral roll” for the two-phase elections to be held on April 23 and April 29.

The bench had, however, clarified that “mere pendency of appeals preferred by excluded persons before the Appellate Tribunals shall not entitle them to exercise their right to vote”.

The court had also pointed out that “over 34 lakh appeals have already been filed” with the Tribunals, “not only against alleged wrongful exclusion, but also, in a substantial number of cases, by objectors aggrieved by the inclusion of several persons in the revised electoral rolls”.