The Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that appeals challenging the inclusion of voters in West Bengal’s electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise were instituted by officials in the office of the State Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), and not by the Commission itself.
The clarification forms part of the ECI’s counter-affidavit filed on October 26 in proceedings concerning allegations that key decisions relating to the electoral revision exercise were taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The dispute centres on the authority under which approximately 16.10 lakh appeals were filed against the inclusion of voters whose claims had been allowed by judicial officers appointed to adjudicate objections arising from the SIR process.
According to the affidavit, the Commission received a communication dated October 22 from the West Bengal CEO’s office stating that its officers had filed the appeals in their capacity as electoral-roll authorities under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The ECI maintained that the officers were empowered to do so under the Supreme Court’s directions and that the matters had not been brought before the Commission.
The poll panel also pointed out that the voters concerned were already included in the electoral rolls, had obtained favourable orders from judicial officers and were entitled to vote in the recent Assembly elections. Their supporting documents were available on the relevant portal, the affidavit stated.
To substantiate the authority exercised by the State CEO’s office, the ECI relied on the Supreme Court’s orders dated April 1 and April 6, passed in the West Bengal SIR proceedings. Those orders contemplated appeals not only by electors aggrieved by exclusion from the rolls but also by authorities of the Election Commission aggrieved by the inclusion of names by adjudicatory officers.
The Commission further referred to the statutory framework governing electoral rolls, under which Chief Electoral Officers, District Election Officers, Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers discharge specified responsibilities.
The affidavit, however, does not identify the individual officers who authorised the appeals or specify the grounds on which the inclusion of the voters was challenged.
The issue has acquired significance in the broader challenge to the functioning of the Election Commission as a multi-member constitutional body. The petitioners have questioned whether decisions concerning the SIR were taken in accordance with the prescribed collective decision-making process, particularly in light of alleged objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The challenge also refers to questions reportedly raised within the Commission regarding who had authorised the filing of appeals against voter inclusions and the basis for such authorisation.
The ECI has rejected the broader allegation of unilateral decision-making, maintaining that decisions relating to the SIR were taken by the Commission in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and the applicable statutory framework. It has also contended that observations or queries raised by individual Election Commissioners during deliberations do not, by themselves, amount to decisions of the Commission.
The poll panel filed a brief counter-affidavit during the Dussehra vacation and sought permission to submit a detailed, paragraph-wise response.
The controversy arises against the backdrop of a large volume of appeals generated by West Bengal’s SIR exercise. In an earlier submission to the Supreme Court, the ECI had disclosed that appeals included challenges by electors whose names had been excluded as well as appeals contesting the inclusion of names in the electoral rolls.
The latest disclosure clarifies that the appeals against voter inclusions were filed by officials of the State CEO’s office rather than directly by the Commission. The larger questions concerning the authorisation of those appeals and the decision-making process within the poll panel remain part of the pending proceedings.
The post West Bengal SIR: ECI tells Supreme Court appeals against voter inclusions filed by CEO’s office appeared first on India Legal.