The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday told the Supreme Court that 1.61 million appeals challenging the inclusion of voters in West Bengal’s electoral rolls after the special intensive revision (SIR) were filed by officers of the state chief electoral officer’s (CEO’s) office in their statutory capacity, and that these matters were not brought to the Commission.
The affidavit, filed by deputy election commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of the ECI , Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, said the poll panel had received a communication from the office of the West Bengal CEO on October 22 explaining that the appeals were filed by its officers in their capacity as authorities under the law.
“As per provisions of the RP Act, the CEO / DEO / ERO / AERO are the authorities in respect of electoral rolls,” said the affidavit, referring to the chief electoral officer, district election officer, electoral registration officer and assistant electoral registration officer. “The officers had the authority to file the Appeals as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court and these matters were not brought to the Commission,” it added.
Because a petition questioning 14 alleged unilateral decisions in the SIR exercise has specifically asked who authorised the filing of these appeals in the ECI’s name, the submission is significant. In an affidavit filed on Monday, the poll panel cited the Supreme Court ’s April 1 and April 6 orders to defend the filing of the appeals, saying electoral authorities were entitled to challenge inclusions under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The court has been urged to ensure that the appeals of deleted voters are decided in time for them to participate in upcoming local-body elections.
Several petitioners before the Supreme Court have pressed for priority to be given to excluded voters, arguing that deletion immediately affects an individual’s ability to exercise the right to vote, whereas a challenge to another person’s inclusion does not have the same immediate consequence for that individual.
