Judicial officials to rule on 60L Bengal claims by April 7, 47.3L completed: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The West Bengal government is concerned that it will not be able to complete the review of applications filed by deleted voters for inclusion in the electoral roll before filing nominations for the assembly elections later this month, but the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Kolkata has informed that all 6 lakh applications will be decided by April 7.A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has informed that out of 60,06,675 objections filed against deletion of names from the electoral roll, judicial officers have taken decisions on 47,30,000 as on Wednesday. “Calcutta HC CJ has informed us that the pending objections are likely to be decided before April 7. Keeping in mind the above dates, please post these matters on April 6,” the bench said.

SC post removes Bengal voters’ question for further hearing on Monday

In order to appeal against the decision of the Judicial Officer, the Supreme Court, using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to depute the Judicial Officer as the Election Registration Officer in circumstances where the State Government has expressed serious doubts as to the fairness of the procedure adopted by the Election Commission Officer, has directed the constitution of an Election Tribunal. The EC has notified 19 such tribunals, including former chief justices of high courts and former high court judges.The judges said the Court of Appeal would be empowered “to re-examine the full record, including the grounds assigned by the judicial officer in deciding the objection, before ruling on an appeal before it, and to inform the parties of those grounds”. “The court is free to frame its own procedure in accordance with the principles of natural justice and requires that appeals be decided after giving the parties a fair opportunity to be heard,” it said, adding that those intending to appeal to the court will be provided with the judicial officer’s reasons for rejecting their claims.At this moment, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee objected to the EC providing a day’s training to former chief justices and judges before the court begins work on Thursday. “Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies. They have to act independently. Why training,” he asked.CJI Kant said, “They are former chief justices and high court judges. Apparently, they will act independently. The training is to handle computers and soft copies of documents.” Don’t raise pointless objections. DS Naidu, Advisor and Senior Advocate, Election Commission said that this is not training but just induction.Justice Bagchi said, “They have vast experience in decision-making. You (Banerjee) do not have to worry about EC officials influencing the bench.” Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said: “When we have some grievances, we must have the freedom to seek help from the Kolkata HC CJ.”The bench said, “Obviously, you have the right to approach the Chief Justice of the Calcutta Supreme Court. But do not go in a group or in a delegation. If you send a political delegation, we will tell the Chief Justice not to receive such a delegation. Mr. Banerjee or the Attorney General can go and meet him. Where is the need for political workers to go and meet the Chief Justice?” Justice Bacchi said: “The problem is that, to our knowledge and information, the political alliance or association made representations not only before the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court but also before the District Judge. We do not want judicial officers to be interfered with in this way. “Don’t play a dual role – engaging with the Supreme Court while continuing to engage politically with judicial officials who are asked to perform special duties that are not within the regular scope of their judicial work. It becomes very difficult when they are subjected to statements of various political overtones and suggestions that they are on side A or B,” Judge Budge said.The Supreme Court bench posted the matter on April 6 for further hearing.