The bench, however, said that allowing such individuals to vote would be meaningless. “If we allow this (them), then let us stop the voting rights of people who are included,” CJI Kant orally remarked.
The observation fell from the bench during the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in the state. Appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners, senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay contended that the people of West Bengal look up to the court.
Justice Bagchi orally remarked that those whose appeals were allowed by April 9 would be included in the voter list. “If adjudication is completed by April 9, even a few days later… their names will be included in the electoral roll for the elections,” Justice Bagchi remarked. However, the bench added that those with pending cases cannot be allowed to vote.
In a related development, NIA on Monday submitted a status report on its probe into the ‘gherao’ of judicial officers in Malda district on April 1 by protesters opposing their deletion from the voter list. The bench directed NIA to inform it about the political background of the accused persons.
The bench also questioned the Election Commission of India over creating a “logical discrepancy” list of doubtful voters during SIR process only in West Bengal. Justice Bagchi observed that voters in West Bengal have now been sandwiched between different constitutional authorities. The observation came after ECI stated that 47% of cases were rejected by judicial officers who adjudicated notices issued by the poll body.
“It is not about the end justifying the means, but the means justifying the end. This is not a fight between the state and Election Commission. This is not a blame game. It is about voters being sandwiched between two constitutional authorities. Courts have intervened only to promote elections and not interdict them,” he remarked. The senior judge added that the election process cannot be interfered with unless and until there is “enormous amount of voter exclusion”. Justice Bagchi added the right to vote has to be continuous and that the court “cannot get blinded by dust and fury of impending elections (in West Bengal)”.
