West Bengal CEO seeks clarity on re-enrolment of voters stuck in tribunal cases

The West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has requested the Election Commission of India (ECI) for clarity on whether voters whose cases are stuck in the State’s Appellate Tribunals could in any manner be considered for the fresh re-enrolment drive of electors left out during the SIR process.

On October 2, the ECI had directed the CEOs of all States and Union Territories where the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has been completed or is underway to compare the pre-SIR voter lists with the current ones and enrol within a period of one month those who have been left out but are eligible, through Form 6.

At a meeting with the CEOs on Tuesday (October 6), the ECI asked them to proceed with the special enrolment drive on a war footing by holding camps to begin with and followed by door-to-door visits by the Booth Level Officers (BLOs).

While many CEOs had queries on the time limit for the exercise and other protocols, the West Bengal CEO put up a query regarding whether the more than 38 lakh voters whose cases are stuck in appellate tribunals would be part of the drive, sources said.

A senior ECI official present at the video conferencing could not give her a clear answer and told her that the matter would be discussed later.

The Hindu had reported earlier that ECI sources had said the new enrolment drive would not be applicable to the tribunal cases.

The appellate tribunals have till now cleared 1.26 lakh out of total 38.31 lakh appeals, which is approximately 3% of total cases.

Out of the 19 appellate tribunals set up by the ECI in March, only 16 remain functional as three retired judges have quit citing various functional issues. Their positions remain vacant.

The appellate tribunals came out of the Supreme Court supervision of the SIR. Judicial officers, drawn from a list the Calcutta High Court sent at the Supreme Court’s direction, were adjudicating the roughly 60 lakh “doubtful and pending” cases. On March 10, the apex court had directed that a separate appellate body be set up so that people could challenge those officers’ decisions.