Supreme Court on SIR cases: Calcutta high court has set April 7 deadline for EC

NEW DELHI/KOLKATA: Supreme Court on Wednesday said Chief Justice Sujoy Paul of Calcutta High Court has informed it that all 60 lakh-odd cases under adjudication would be disposed of by April 7.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said it had been informed by the HC chief justice that of the 60,06,675 objections to deletion of names from the voters’ list, judicial officers disposed of 47,30,000 by Wednesday morning.





“Calcutta HC CJ has informed us the pending objections are likely to be adjudicated by April 7. Keeping the date in mind, post these matters on April 6 (for further hearing),” the bench said.

Election Commission said late on Wednesday 49,62,850 cases had been adjudicated.

Around 500 judicial officers from Bengal and 200 from Odisha and Jharkhand are involved in the adjudication of the doubtful cases that emerged following the publication of the voters’ list on Feb 28. SC entrusted the judicial officers with the task of electoral registration officers exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 after Bengal govt expressed doubts over the conduct of EC officials.

To hear appeals against judicial officers’ decisions, SC directed the constitution of tribunals — 19 have been notified by EC — comprising former HC CJs and judges.

The bench said the tribunals will have the discretion “to revisit the full records, including the reasons assigned by judicial officers while adjudicating objections, before deciding appeals filed before them, and also to inform the parties of these reasons”

The tribunals are free to evolve their own procedures in accordance with principles of natural justice, and are requested to adjudicate the appeals after providing the parties with a fair opportunity of being heard,” it said, adding those intending to file appeals would be told the reasons for the rejection of their claims by judicial officers.

EC counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu told the bench the tribunals would start functioning from Thursday and the ex-judges were imparted training on Wednesday.

Later, when CEO Manoj Agarwal was asked in Kolkata whether the tribunals would start working from Thursday, he said, “How could it be? Basic infrastructure like tables, chairs, etc. are required. Will the judges work sitting on the ground? I can’t say when the tribunals will start functioning.”

Sources said the ex-judges heading the 19 tribunals flagged certain issues in their first interaction with EC on Wednesday. Lack of clarity from EC during a virtual meeting even prompted three ex-judges to say they wanted to step down. The former judges were unconvinced about the way the tribunals would hear cases, the sources said.

When the issue of tribunals came up at SC, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the Bengal govt, objected to EC imparting training to the former judges. “Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies. They must act independently. Why the training?” Banerjee submitted.

CJI Kant said, “They are former CJs and judges of HCs. Obviously, they will act independently. Training is for handling computers and soft copies of documents. Don’t raise frivolous objections.”

EC counsel and senior advocate Naidu said the exercise was orientation, not training.

Justice Bagchi said, “They have vast experience in deciding matters. You (Banerjee) must not be worried about EC officials influencing judges.”

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Bengal govt, said, “We must have the liberty to approach the Calcutta HC CJ when we have some grievance.” The bench said, “Obviously, you have the right to approach the Calcutta HC CJ. But don’t go in a group or in a delegation. If you send a political delegation, we will tell the CJ not to entertain such delegations. Mr Banerjee, or the advocate general, can go and meet. Where is the necessity of political workers to go and meet the CJ?”


Justice Bagchi said, “The problem is, to the best of our knowledge and information, representations by political unions or associations are not only made to the Calcutta HC CJ, but also to district judges. We do not want judicial officers to be disturbed in this manner.

“Do not play a double role — approach SC and at the same time continue politics with judicial officers who have been called upon to perform an exceptional duty, which is not within the common run of their judicial work. When they are subjected to representations from various political hues and insinuations are made that they are siding with A or B, it becomes very difficult.”

Sibal said, “We assure that representation would have no political colour.”