Intro
The top court said Mamata Banerjee and others could file fresh applications over electoral roll deletions in West Bengal
New Delhi
The Trinamool Congress on Monday informed the Supreme Court of India that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal had materially influenced the outcome of Assembly elections in several constituencies.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India ahead of the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Trinamool Congress leaders, argued that the deletion of voters during the revision process had a direct bearing on election outcomes in multiple constituencies.
Referring specifically to the Jangipara Assembly constituency, Banerjee stated that BJP candidate Prasenjit Bag won by a margin of only 862 votes, while more than 5,000 voter names were allegedly deleted during the SIR exercise.
My candidate lost by 862 votes, but 5,550 names were deleted. This Court had indicated that if the vote difference is less than the deletion of names, then this court will look into it, Banerjee submitted before the Bench.
The senior counsel further argued that the overall vote gap between the Trinamool Congress and the BJP across the state was approximately 32 lakh votes, while nearly 35 lakh appeals against voter deletions were still pending before appellate tribunals established under earlier Supreme Court directions.
Banerjee contended that constituencies where the victory margin was lower than the number of deleted voters deserved detailed judicial examination. According to him, unresolved appeals and large-scale voter deletions raised serious concerns regarding the fairness of the electoral process.
However, the Bench clarified that any grievance specifically relating to election outcomes and the alleged impact of deleted voters would require the filing of a separate interlocutory application.
Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing on behalf of the Election Commission, opposed the submissions and argued that disputes concerning election results could only be challenged through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act.
The matter forms part of an ongoing legal battle over the Special Intensive Revision process, which has become a major political issue following allegations by opposition parties that genuine voters were removed from electoral rolls before polling.
The Supreme Court is expected to continue hearing the broader challenge to the voter revision exercise while questions related to individual election outcomes may be addressed separately through appropriate legal proceedings.
