The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Trinamool Congress (TMC) to file separate submissions on allegations that the results of the recent West Bengal Assembly elections were materially affected by voter deletions made during the Special Intensive Review (SIR) process, even as the Election Commission of India (ECI) maintained that any challenge to the poll results can only be pursued through election petitions filed by defeated candidates.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi was hearing a batch of appeals challenging the practice of SIR in West Bengal when senior advocate and TMC MP Kalyan Bandhopadhyay argued that in at least 31 constituencies won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the BJP’s margin of victory was less than the number of voters removed from the electoral rolls whose appeals are pending before the appellate courts.
Also read: TMC says SIR deleted more votes than BJP’s margin of victory on 31 seats in West Bengal, Supreme Court responds
The lawsuit filed in court, for the first time after the election, alleges a link between the controversial voter removal process and the election results in specific electoral districts. Certainly, the HT analysis itself shows that there is no such correlation. “Whatever you want to say about the results… which may have been materially affected by the deletions that are in the process… this requires an independent IA (interlocutory application),” the bench replied, asking the TMC to record the full details through separate applications.
Representing ECI, senior advocate DS Naidu argued that the appropriate legal remedy against the election result is the filing of an election petition under the Election Act by a losing candidate and not the proceedings in the pending writ petitions challenging the SIR process.
The court said that EUC’s objections will be considered once the new applications are submitted.
Bandhopadhyay, who represents some TMC leaders in the court, pointed to one constituency where the TMC candidate lost by just 862 votes while over 5,400 voters were removed under the SIR adjudication process. He also stated that across the state, the overall vote gap between the BJP and TMC was nearly 3.2 million votes while nearly 3.5 million appeals against deletion of voters were still pending before the appellate courts.
Also read: Mamata’s party has ‘2%, 15%’ reminder to Supreme Court as SIR deletions in Bengal ‘higher than BJP’s margin of victory’
Referring to a previous hearing held before the election, the senior counsel relied on the court’s previous observation that the court may have to “apply its mind” if the number of excluded voters exceeds the margin of victory. During the April 13 hearing, the bench noted: “If 10% do not vote and the margin of victory is more than 10%, then… if it is less than 5%, we have to apply our judgment.” The court had at that stage refused to stay the practice of SIR but directed the formation of appellate tribunals, comprising former chief justices and judges of high courts, to hear appeals against the deletions.
The SIR exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India in West Bengal has become one of the most controversial electoral audits in recent years. On April 10, the Independent Electoral Commission announced the removal of nearly 9 million from electoral rolls in the state. Of these, around 2.7 million deletions fell under the category of ‘logical inconsistency’ – a classification specially introduced for West Bengal that was missed in the Bihar SIR exercise conducted earlier.
Within this category, voters were flagged for reasons such as mismatches in names, discrepancies in age gaps with parents or grandparents, and inconsistencies regarding family details.
Read also: ‘We will not accept any criminal…’: Congress, Left parties reject Mamata Banerjee’s call for alliance against BJP
On Monday, senior human rights advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who represents TMC leaders, also highlighted the continued wait before appeals courts and warned that at the current pace, it could take nearly four years for all appeals to be decided.
The bench responded that prompt disposal of pending appeals would remain a priority for the court.
The matter was adjourned after the bench indicated that it would examine the impact of the deletion of voters on the electoral results once appropriate applications containing constituency details were brought before it.
