A day to go for the voter list to be finalised for the first phase of Assembly elections in West Bengal, the tribunals to hear applications of those “deleted” are yet to start functioning in the state. However, following Supreme Court intervention, at least one of them will get to vote: Motab Shaikh, the Congress candidate from Farakka, in Murshidabad district.
Retired Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court T S Sivagnanam held a special hearing at Salt Lake to hear Shaikh’s case. Shaikh, who was present, submitted his passport – the same document he says he gave as part of the Special Intensive Revision exercise. Justice Sivagnanam went through all the papers afresh, noting in his order that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had cited “technical reasons” for not submitting the circumstances leading to his name being “deleted” by a judicial officer during adjudication.
Justice Sivagnanam finally held that the passport given by Shaikh was sufficient, and ordered the ECI to declare him a valid voter of Murshidabad via an additional list by 8 pm Sunday night.
Shaikh’s advocate Firdaus Shamim told The Indian Express: “This first case before a tribunal proves how genuine voters’ names have been deleted from electoral rolls.”
The Farakka Assembly seat was won by the Trinamool Congress in 2021, and before that was bagged five successive times by the Congress.
The ECI did not respond to an email Sunday seeking comment on the delay in setting up the tribunals.
Asked about the delay, Chief Electoral Officer Manoj Agarwal, who was in Nandigram on Sunday, told media: “Judicial officials have done their work applying judicial mind and as per the law of the land. If people’s names have been deleted, they can appeal. Appeal-related work will start soon, in a day or two.”
Earlier, after Shaikh went to the Supreme Court over his “deletion” from voter list following adjudication, the Court directed on April 2 that his issue be resolved. The Court said that the tribunal concerned – 19 of them were supposed to have started functioning from April 2 – take up his case and dispose it of with the help of the ECI by the forenoon of April 6.
At the hearing before Justice Sivagnanam, which started at 10.30 am Sunday, EC officials were present along with Shaikh and his advocate. The judge sought to see the reasons on the ground of which the judicial officer had “deleted” his name during adjudication. After the EC said it could not do so due to “technical reasons”, the tribunal proceeded to examine the entire records.
Its order said: “As the Aadhaar Card shows the name of the appellant as Motabh Shaikh, this would be sufficient to accept the case of the appellant. Furthermore, in the passport issued to the appellant on 8th November, 2018, the name of the appellant is Motab and surname is Shaikh. The appellant was issued a Driving Licence in the year 2001, which shows the name of the appellant as Motab Shaikh, son of Ejabul Shaikh. As pointed out earlier, there is no discrepancy in the name of the father of the appellant in any record. The appellant also placed before the Tribunal his family tree and submitted that, except the appellant, all the family members, which include his six siblings, their respective spouses and children, have been included in the voters’ list and no discrepancy has been found.”
The order added: “In the voters’ list drawn pursuant to the SIR conducted in 2002, the name of the appellant was mentioned as Motab Herul. In the said list, the name of the appellant’s father has been correctly mentioned. On account of this discrepancy, the appellant filed an affidavit duly signed before a notary public dated 3rd April, 2002, for the purpose of the Election Commission of India to rectify the name… Taking note of such affidavit and, in all probabilities after due enquiry, the Election Commission of India issued Voter ID card on 15th December, 2012, mentioning the name of the appellant as Motab Sk, son of Ejabul Sekh.”
On the adjudication process, Judge Sivagnanam said: “The above record appears to have not been taken note… This observation is made as the Tribunal could not peruse the reasons given by the Adjudicating Judicial Officer for excluding the appellant’s name… That apart the appellant has produced the copies of the birth certificate of his four children, first of whom was born in 1993 in which the name of the appellant/father was shown as Motab Shaikh. For all the above reasons, the appellant is entitled to succeed.”
Over 700 judicial officers had been appointed for adjudication of cases of 60 lakh-odd people who did not figure in Bengal voter list after the SIR. As per the CEO’s office, by Saturday, 57 lakh of the 60 lakh cases had been “processed”. However, the poll panel is yet to give a combined figure of how many of the 57 lakh cases are of “deletions”. Earlier, when about 49 lakh cases had been “processed”, EC officials had put deletions at 45% or 22 lakh.
The EC had constituted 19 tribunals, to be headed by high court judges or chief justices, to decide appeals of those “deleted” after adjudication. However, it is yet to set these up physically, even after changing plans from 19 tribunals in 19 electoral districts to all under one roof at the Syama Prasad Mookerjee National Institute of Water and Sanitation at Joka near Kolkata.
The recent incident at Malda, where people whose names were not in the voter list after adjudication or who were in the dark about their status, gheraoed judicial officers has also cast a shadow on the process. The authorities must not only provide the physical infrastructure for the tribunals but also guarantee multi-layered security now.
Incidentally, the 8,000 appeals meant for tribunals that the EC confirmed as having received till Saturday cite primarily three reasons for being “deleted” – “not found”, rejection of applications for inclusion, or third-party objections.
People who failed to get their names into the electoral rolls after the adjudication process try to submit online appeals to tribunals. (Express photo by Partha Paul/File) 
Share
