The Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court on Monday declined to give urgent relief in two separate cases challenging aspects of the Election Commission’s functioning, including the pendency of appeals over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal and 14 administrative orders allegedly issued despite objections from two Election Commissioners.
The Supreme Court refused to advance the hearing of a case concerning the pending appeals arising from the SIR exercise in West Bengal, while the Bombay High Court declined to urgently hear a writ petition questioning 14 actions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
SC declines urgent hearing
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined to advance the date of hearing.
Also read | ECI’s internal dissent: What does the law say, and what happens next? | Capital Beat
The request to urgently hear the case was made in view of the October 6 by-polls in Rejinagar and Nandigram assembly constituencies. “These are only by-elections, that’s all,” CJI Kant remarked, according to a report in Bar and Bench.
The SIR appeals are pending before the appellate tribunals appointed on orders of the top court.
The counsel who made the request for an urgent hearing of the matter said the case was listed for hearing on September 29 but is now tentatively showing as listed for October 5.
“We are seeking urgent directions so that it can be listed before that. There are more than 18,000 appeals pending which have not been disposed of. These people did not take part in the first elections,” the counsel said.
The counsel added that this will be the second time when people will be missing out on voting. The court then said the case will be listed on October 5.
14 ECI actions challenged
In a separate case, the Bombay High Court declined to urgently hear a writ petition challenging 14 administrative orders and actions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petitioners alleged that the decisions were taken despite objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Advocate Asim Sarode mentioned the petition before a division bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and Justice Neeraj Dhote and sought an urgent hearing. However, the bench declined to grant an urgent hearing, citing the burden of pending matters on its roster. The case is likely to be heard on October 22.
According to LiveLawthe petition challenges 14 administrative actions and orders issued by the Election Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner over the past 10 months. The petitioners claim that these actions relate to the preparation of electoral rolls, registration of new voters, electoral roll data and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers.
The petition also cited a recently published news report which claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections to certain decisions. According to the report, the objections concerned changes to Form 6 for registration of new voters, the deletion and restoration of voters’ names, appeals against orders relating to the restoration of voters during the Special Intensive Revision, and the management of and access to electoral roll data.
Plea seeks voter roll review
The petition seeks the quashing of the 14 alleged actions and restoration of the names of deleted voters. It also seeks a stay on the Special Intensive Revision process in Maharashtra, postponement of the upcoming Assembly elections until legally valid electoral rolls are prepared and approved, and the constitution of an independent judicial committee to investigate the alleged irregularities.
Also read | Appointment dispute and internal dissent: EC faces a checks-and-balances question
The petitioners have argued that the Election Commission should adopt a practical and flexible approach while carrying out its responsibilities relating to electoral rolls to ensure a democratic system.
For now, the High Court has declined to grant an urgent hearing in the matter. However, the case is likely to come up for hearing on October 22.