‘Poll panel has control and superintendence over voter lists’
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said the Election Commission is not a constitutional authority concerning the determination of citizenship, adding that there is no confusion in law.
“The Election Commission has control and superintendence over the electoral roll,” the top court added.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing the plea filed by Prasenjit Bose, chairperson of the SIR committee of West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee.
The bench referred to the judgment delivered in the Bihar SIR case and said, “There is a corresponding duty on the Election Commission that when a tribunal says a person cannot be on the SIR list, the EC has to refer the case to the Union ministry for the determination of citizenship under the Citizenship Act.”
It sought responses from the Election Commission, the West Bengal government and the state poll panel on the PIL seeking disclosure of Assembly constituency-wise data of claims and objections filed by deleted voters during the SIR process.
The petition, filed through lawyer Neha Rathi, sought Assembly constituency-wise data relating to the West Bengal special intensive revision (SIR) process, including the number of Forms 6 and 7 filed, admitted and rejected, as well as details regarding the pendency and disposal of appeals before the appellate tribunals.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, appearing for Bose, said that the manner in which 18 tribunals set up to deal with the claims and objections of deleted voters are functioning is causing discrepancies and delays at a practical level.
He said due to deletions, the persons are excluded from welfare measures like public distribution and Annapurna schemes in the state and they are being denied the caste certificates as well.
The senior lawyer said that 33.5 lakh appeals are still pending and the disposed of cases show that 70 per cent claims are allowed.
“So, in the meantime they are decided, they are ousted from PDS and other schemes,” the lawyer said.
The bench agreed to hear the fresh plea with pending petitions including the one filed by former chief minister Mamata Banerjee on the SIR issue on August 25.
The plea seeks enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The SIR exercise in West Bengal resulted in the exclusion of over 58 lakh electors during the enumeration phase, it said, adding that while 9.64 lakh applications for inclusion (Forms 6 and 6A) and over 99,000 applications for deletion (Form 7) were received during the claims and objections phase, only around 1.82 lakh additions were ultimately reflected in the final electoral roll published on February 28.
The petitioner said that the poll panel has not disclosed constituency-wise data showing how many applications were received, accepted or rejected, limiting public scrutiny of the exercise.
The PIL said the absence of detailed data and the non-publication of formats prescribed under the EC’s Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2024 undermines transparency and accountability in the revision process.
The petition also raises concerns over the process adopted to identify more than 60 lakh “logical discrepancy” cases, alleging that criteria such as parent-child age gaps, multiple family linkages and name mismatches were introduced without any basis in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 or the SIR notifications.
It alleges that these criteria led to notices and large-scale deletions without adequate transparency regarding the basis of the action. Another key issue highlighted in the petition concerns the functioning of the 18 appellate tribunals constituted following the Supreme Court’s orders to hear appeals arising from the SIR exercise.
The petitioner says that although a three-member judicial committee prepared a standard operating procedure (SOP) on April 7, the document has not been made public.
The PIL seeks directions to publish the SOP and prepare simplified appeal guidelines in Bangla, Hindi and English to enable greater public participation and accessibility, particularly for rural and economically weaker voters.
