Back
Clock Ticking: Calcutta HC Pushes Tribunal to Restore Voter Before WB Polls
In a swift intervention just days before West Bengal's crucial polling on , the has urged the to prioritize a voter's appeal against the deletion of his name from the electoral roll. Justice Krishna Rao, sitting in , disposed of —filed by Muddassir Ahmed Siddique against the and others—with a pointed request for early adjudication. This comes amid reports of multiple similar writ petitions by affected voters ahead of the state elections.
Vanished from the Rolls: A Simple Yet Urgent Grievance
Muddassir Ahmed Siddique's name once appeared on the voter list, but it was mysteriously deleted ahead of the polls. On , he filed Appeal No. APS2512G090426420768 before the , where it remains pending. With votes set to be cast in less than two days from the order date of , Siddique turned to the High Court via , arguing that a prompt hearing would allow him to exercise his democratic right.
Represented by advocates including and others, the petitioner highlighted the time-sensitive nature of the issue. The Election Commission, through , was present but the order notes no substantive counter-arguments, focusing instead on the procedural urgency.
No Fireworks in Court: A Request, Not a Directive
The hearing was brief, with the petitioner submitting that expeditious disposal by the Tribunal would enable him to participate in the polls. There were no deep dives into legal precedents or complex statutory interpretations—no citations to election laws or constitutional articles. Justice Rao's reasoning centered on practicality: the impending election deadline made delay untenable.
This aligns with broader concerns in West Bengal polls, where the High Court has been approached by individuals over alleged wrongful deletions during what reports describe as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Krishna Rao distilled the matter succinctly:
"The grievance of the petitioner is that initially the name of the petitioner was appearing in the Voter list but subsequently, the name of the petitioner was deleted."
"He submits that if thewill consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner and dispose of the same, the petitioner will get an opportunity to cast his vote on."
"In view of the above, theis disposed of by requesting theto consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner datedas early as possible."
Ballot Box Lifeline: What Happens Next?
The stands disposed, but not dismissed—the court stopped short of mandating action, opting for a polite yet firm "request" to the Tribunal. This non-binding nudge underscores the High Court's deference to the specialized appellate body while safeguarding franchise rights in a high-stakes election window.
For Siddique, success hinges on the Tribunal's response. Broader implications? It signals judicial sensitivity to voter roll disputes in election seasons, potentially influencing similar pending appeals and reminding authorities of the right to vote's immediacy. As polling stations open tomorrow, this order could be a quiet guardian of democracy
