- Supreme Court issues notice on West Bengal electoral plea.
- Plea seeks preventing welfare benefit loss for deleted voters.
- Deletion from rolls impacts PDS, other vital government benefits.
- Petitioner cited 34 lakh appeals; urges tribunal transparency.
New Delhi [India], July 17 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the West Bengal government on a plea seeking directions that persons whose names are deleted from the electoral rolls after rejection of their appeals by Special Tribunals under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal should not be deprived of welfare benefits under government schemes.
The petition, filed by Prasenjit Bose, contends that deletion from the electoral roll should not automatically result in exclusion from schemes such as the Public Distribution System (PDS), the Annapurna scheme and other welfare programmes providing monetary and social benefits.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued notice on the plea and indicated that it may list the matter before July 25.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that around 34 lakh appeals are still pending before the Special Tribunals, while media reports indicate that only about 38,000 appeals have been decided so far. He also pointed out that there are only 19 tribunals dealing with the appeals and that two judges have already resigned.
Referring to the consequences of deletion from the electoral rolls, Sankaranarayanan argued that those affected are being excluded from public welfare schemes and entitlements.
“The consequences of a deletion now… PDS, Annapurna, caste certificates, verification,” he submitted, adding that people could be deprived of benefits even before issues relating to their status are finally resolved.
Justice Bagchi responded that the issue had already been addressed by the Supreme Court in its judgment concerning the Bihar SIR exercise.
“We are conscious of this. In our Bihar SIR judgment, we have clarified that the ECI, as soon as it takes a decision over voting rights, cannot decide citizenship. The ECI has a corresponding duty to refer the matter to the Ministry for adjudication under the Citizenship Act,” Justice Bagchi observed.
Sankaranarayanan, however, argued that despite the legal position, affected persons continued to face immediate hardship.
“Neither you (Court) nor us apprehended that all these welfare schemes would be taken away from them,” he submitted.
The Court replied that the legal position governing the ECI’s role was already settled.
“Law is clear. ECI has control and superintendence over the electoral roll,” the Court observed.
The petitioner also sought greater transparency in the functioning of the Special Tribunals.
Sankaranarayanan urged the Court to direct that the tribunals maintain websites and upload their standard operating procedures as well as their adjudication orders.
“There should be a mechanism to ensure transparency. Tribunals should have websites, put out their SOPs and put up their orders,” he submitted.
Questioning the insistence on multiple documents for proving citizenship, the senior counsel further argued.
“If you have a passport, then it should be accepted. Why need other documents?”, the senior lawyer said.
The petitioner also requested the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 (courts’ power to do “complete justice”) by protecting affected persons from being denied welfare benefits while their citizenship-related issues remain unresolved.
(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
