The judicial officers are to perform the function of the Electoral Register Officers (ERO). The top court said it was constrained to pass the “extraordinary” direction in the wake of “extraordinary circumstances”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipin Pancholi noted there was a clear lack of cooperation between the state government and the ECI.
“There is an unfortunate blame game of allegations and counter allegations which shows trust deficit between two constitutional functionaries – that is, the state government and the Election Commission of India. Now the process is stuck at the stage of claims and objections of the persons who have been included in the logical discrepancy list. Most of the persons to whom notices were issued have submitted their documents in support of their claims for inclusion in the voters’ list. These claims are required to be adjudicated in a quasi-judicial process by EROs,” the bench said in its order.
The bench said to “ensure fairness in the adjudication of the genuineness of the documents and consequential inclusion/exclusion in the voters’ list, and as agreed to by both sides, we are left with hardly any other option but to request the hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Calcutta to spare serving judicial officers along with some former judicial officers in the rank of additional district judge or district judges who can then be requested to revisit/dispose of the pending claims under the category of ‘logical discrepancy’.”
The bench ordered that each such judicial officer/former judicial officer shall be assisted by micro-observers from the ECI and state government officials who have been deployed for such duties.
The bench said the “circumstances being extraordinary, the entrustment to judicial officers/former judicial officers is also extra ordinary. We are also conscious of the fact that this may have an impact on the pending court cases. The chief justice, with the assistance of the Committee of Registrar General and district judges, may evolve some interim arrangement for the shifting of matters requiring urgent relief to alternate courts”.The court took this step in view of the dispute as to whether sufficient Group B officers in the rank of SDM have been provided by the state to ECI to function as EROs. The state, on its part, objected to ECI relying on micro-observers and special roll observers appointed by it.
At the last hearing, the top court had directed the West Bengal government to ensure that officers provided to the ECI report for duty. However, the ECI alleged that it was not being provided well qualified officers.
At this, CJI Kant orally said that the bench was “disappointed to see this kind of attitude on behalf” of the West Bengal government. The CJI remarked: “You (state) are not providing competent Group A officers. How can incompetent officials decide the fate of the people?”
In a related development, CJI Kant again deprecated irresponsible statements being made by politicians during the time of elections. “Unfortunately, at the time of elections, irresponsible statements are being made”, the CJI Kant remarked after counsel for ECI said that “incendiary” speeches are being made by politicians against SIR. As regards ECI’s allegations that the SIR was marred by violence, intimidation and sustained political interference, the bench issued a warning to the WB Director General of Police (DGP).
“Unfortunately, in this country, all these statements are made during elections. Is the DGP taking care of this, else there will be stern action,” the bench added. After it was told that no action was being taken by the police on the complaints, the bench asked the DGP to give details of all the complaints received and the action taken on them.
