'Can't interfere with poll results unless winning margin less than number of exclusions': SC on Bengal SIR case

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that election results cannot be interfered with in the absence of a significant impact from voter exclusions, while hearing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) case related to West Bengal. The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said that unless the number of excluded voters exceeds or meaningfully affects the winning margin, there would be no grounds to disturb the outcome of an election.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi raised concerns over what he termed a “logical discrepancy” in the Election Commission’s process, particularly the preparation of a list of doubtful voters during the SIR exercise. He remarked that voters in West Bengal appeared to be “sandwiched between two constitutional authorities,” stressing that the issue should not be reduced to a conflict between institutions but viewed from the perspective of protecting voters’ rights.

The Court also questioned deviations in the implementation of SIR compared to other states, especially Bihar, noting differences in the treatment of the 2002 electoral roll as a benchmark. Justice Bagchi pointed out that earlier submissions had indicated that those listed in 2002 would not be required to furnish documents, while current arguments appeared to shift that position.

Highlighting procedural concerns, the Bench acknowledged that errors could occur during large-scale verification exercises, particularly when judicial officers handle high volumes of cases daily. It stressed the need for a robust appellate mechanism to address such issues, noting that accuracy limitations must be accounted for in the process.

The Court further underscored the importance of voting rights, describing them as not only constitutional but also deeply sentimental. While declining to intervene in matters related to the functioning of appellate tribunals at this stage, the Bench directed petitioners to pursue remedies through the designated appellate forum, reiterating that judicial processes should not be placed under undue pressure.