Trinamool Congress approaches Supreme Court against SIR impacting their victory in at least 31 constituencies with credible proofs
SUNIL NEGI
The Trinamool Congress which LOST badly at the hands of the saffron party in West Bengal has on Monday approached the apex court complaining that the Special Intensive Revision has badly and adversely impacted their party arbitrarily at least in 31 constituencies.
The results of the elections in various constitiencies have been affected by this SIR.
The TMC has while challenging the SIR in Bengal while filing the petition in Supreme Court said that at least in 31 constituencies of West Bengal, the number of voters whose name have been deleted from electoral rolls are massive than the negligible margin of voters exhibiting the victory of the BJP candidates.
It may be recalled that a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) justice Suryakant and Justice T. Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the pleas challenging the nomination of SIR by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections.
The Trinamool Congress said that while the BJP has deleted the names of 35 lakhs voters in West Bengal it has won securing 32 lakh votes making it absolutely clear that these elections were won illegally.
During the hearing, Trinamool Congress leaders and advocate Karalyan Banerjee, representing the party, pointed out that in many elections, the number of voters whose names had been deleted during the SIR was more than the winning margin between the BJP and Trinamool candidates.
Referring to the Jangipara Assembly constituency, Banerjee said that BJP candidate Pasenjit won by a margin of 862 votes, even though more than 5,000 names were shown in the voter list as deleted during the SIR process.
The court has catagorically indicated that if the vote difference is less than the number of names removed, the court will investigate the matter.
The opposing counsel further claimed that the vote difference between the Tamil Nadu and BJP in Rajasthan is approximately 3.2 million votes, while approximately 3.5 million appeals against the deletion of names from the voter list are still pending before appellate tribunals constituted in accordance with Supreme Court precedents.
Citing an earlier observation by the Supreme Court, Banerjee even argued that judicial scrutiny is necessary in cases where the margin of victory is less than the number of voters deleted.
However, a bench headed by a Chief Justice held that complaints related to the election results and the alleged impact of deletions from the voters’ list would require separate interim applications.
Advocate Mr. Seshadri, appearing for the Election Commission, said that issues related to election results can only be raised through election petitions filed under the Representation of the People Act. Banerjee then requested the Supreme Court to clarify whether the removal of names as a result of SIR can be considered a basis for an election petition.
The bench questioned how it could pass such an order, stating that the matter can only be investigated if a proper application with the relevant details is filed before the Supreme Court. “You can file an IA for further developments. Whatever the judge says will be a counter-measure. We will consider it and pass an order.”
The Supreme Court also addressed concerns about the delay in appeals filed by voters whose names were removed from the electoral rolls.
