Last Updated:
The Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress claims that voter deletions exceeded victory margins in several assembly constituencies during this year’s polls
The Supreme Court intends to examine all pending appellate tribunal challenges across West Bengal to ensure their timely resolution. File pic/PTI
The Supreme Court of India raised critical legal questions during a hearing regarding the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, questioning whether the judiciary can direct fresh elections based on claims that voter deletions exceeded victory margins in several assembly constituencies.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana deliberated on an application submitted by senior advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay on behalf of a Trinamool Congress (TMC) member.
The Arithmetical Discrepancy
Representing the TMC petitioner, senior advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay submitted a detailed breakdown highlighting 31 assembly constituencies where the victory margin of winning BJP candidates was narrower than the total volume of voters deleted during the SIR process.
- Narrow Margins: In one assembly constituency (AC-145), the losing margin was just 401 votes, compared to 8,785 voter deletions. In another seat, a candidate lost by 316 votes amidst much higher SIR exclusions.
- Impact on Outcomes: The petitioners argued that such large-scale voter removals materially altered election results, denying thousands of legitimate citizens their right to vote.
- Lack of Public Data: The TMC counsel informed the apex court that assembly-wise appeal data remains difficult to quantify because the Election Commission of India (ECI) has not made these figures available in the public domain.
Supreme Court’s Observations
In response to the submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant orally remarked, “You can file the application on this, but can the court direct fresh elections like this?” The Chief Justice inquired whether the affected candidates had filed formal election petitions in those 31 constituencies to challenge the returned candidates, to which the counsel responded that election petitions had been filed in some, but not all, seats.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out the necessity of assessing how many excluded individuals actually filed appeals against their voter list deletions.
The court highlighted that if an excluded voter accepted the deletion without filing an appeal, challenging the outcome on their behalf becomes purely academic. However, if 100 people were deleted, the winning margin was 50, and 60 or 70 of those excluded voters filed pending appeals, the challenge to the deletion exercise becomes substantial and highly relevant.
Broader Scope of Inquiry
The bench clarified that it will not limit its scrutiny to the 31 highlighted seats alone. Instead, the Supreme Court intends to examine all pending appellate tribunal challenges across West Bengal to ensure their timely resolution.
Key Questions Answered
Ask News18The Supreme Court questioned whether it could direct fresh elections based on claims that voter deletions exceeded victory margins, indicating that affected candidates should file formal election petitions. This suggests that future election petitions would still need to follow established legal processes rather than direct court orders for fresh elections.
Ask News18About the Author
Pathikrit Sen Gupta is a Senior Associate Editor with News18.com and likes to cut a long story short. He writes sporadically on Politics, Sports, Global Affairs, Space, Entertainment, And Food. He tra…Read More
August 26, 2026, 03:50 IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
