Kamal Ghorui
NEW DELHI: Contrary to West Bengal govt’s apprehensions that scrutiny of deleted voters’ claims for inclusion in voters’ lists would not be completed before filing of nominations for assembly elections later this month, Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Calcutta HC chief justice has informed that all 60 lakhodd claims would be adjudicated by April 7.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said the Calcutta HC CJ has informed that out of 60,06,675 objections to deletion of names from voters’ lists, judicial officers have decided 47,30,000 by Wednesday. “Calcutta HC CJ has informed us that the pending objections are likely to be adjudicated by April 7. Keeping the aforesaid date in mind, post these matters on April 6,” the bench said.
SC posts deleted Bengal voters matter for further hearing Mon
To appeal against the decisions of judicial officers, who were entrusted the task of electoral registration officers by SC using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 in the face of the state govt expressing serious doubts about the fairness of the process adopted by EC officials, SC had directed constitution of election tribunals. Nineteen such tribunals, comprising former HC CJs and former HC judges, have been notified by EC.The bench said the appellate 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 before the tribunals would be provided with reasons given by judicial officers in rejecting their claims.At this juncture, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee objected to EC giving a day’s training to former CJs and judges prior to the commencement of work in the tribunals from Thursday. “Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies. They must act independently. Why the training,” he asked.CJI Kant said, “They are former CJs and judges of HCs. Obviously, they will act independently. Training is for handling computer and soft copies of documents. Don’t raise frivolous objections.” Election commission counsel and senior advocate D S Naidu said it is not training, but only orientation.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 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,” Justice Bagchi said.The apex court bench posted the matters on April 6 for further hearing.
