The Supreme Court has questioned the Election Commission and West Bengal government over 34 lakh pending appeals regarding electoral roll deletions. The court is examining whether individuals whose names were removed from voter lists should face a suspension of state welfare benefits while their appeals are still being processed.
The Supreme Court of India has initiated a legal examination into the electoral revision process in West Bengal, focusing on the handling of appeals and the subsequent impact on residents' access to welfare services. A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal, and the state government following a public interest litigation regarding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Backlog in Appellate Process
Legal representatives for the petitioner highlighted that out of approximately 34 lakh appeals filed against the removal of names from voter lists, only about 38,000 have been processed. This significant backlog suggests a delay in the current appellate tribunal system. The petition argues for a more transparent process, including the public disclosure of the Standard Operating Procedure used for these appeals and the release of case data to ensure accountability.
Data presented during the hearing indicated that when appeals were actually heard, around 70% were allowed. This high success rate has prompted arguments for setting a clear minimum documentary threshold to speed up the disposal of the remaining millions of cases, which currently remain unresolved.
Impact on Essential Welfare Benefits
A major concern raised before the court involves the potential denial of essential government services, such as ration distributions and pensions, to individuals whose names have been purged from the electoral rolls. The court expressed strong reservations about the suspension of these benefits while citizenship status remains in question or while appeals are pending.
During the proceedings, Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that the Election Commission is not the designated authority to determine citizenship, as that power rests with the Ministry of Home Affairs. The court emphasized that deletion from an electoral roll does not automatically mean a person has lost their citizenship. The petitioner’s counsel argued that welfare services should not be linked to electoral status, especially given the lack of a standardized procedure for tribunal functioning and reports of unuploaded orders that have hindered transparency.
The court has now tasked the relevant authorities with providing an explanation for these procedural gaps. The next steps for those affected depend on how the ECI and the state government respond to these notices and whether they implement a streamlined process to clear the massive backlog of pending appeals.