Back
Retired Judge's Voter Inclusion Marks Turn in Bengal SIR Saga
In a significant development amid the contentious Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, retired Justice Sahidullah Munshi and his family members have had their names restored to the voter list. Initially excluded from the draft rolls and marked with discrepancies in the first supplementary list—his name as "not found" and family as "under adjudication"—their inclusion in a second supplementary list published late Friday by the brings temporary relief to the former judge. “In the second supplementary list published late at night, it was shown our names have been cleared. Now it seems that there is no dispute,” Justice Munshi told Bar & Bench .
This resolution, however, underscores deeper procedural concerns in the SIR exercise, which has deleted over 63.66 lakh names—approximately 8.3% of the electorate—reducing the voter base from 7.66 crore to 7.04 crore. Over 60 lakh electors remain "under adjudication," subject to scrutiny by judicial officers. The episode involving a prominent retired judge highlights potential systemic flaws, including lack of document receipts, unexplained deletions, and inconsistent treatment within families, fueling allegations of targeted disenfranchisement, particularly in Muslim-dominated areas. With the already intervening to mandate , the saga raises critical questions for election law practitioners about administrative fairness and judicial oversight in voter verification.
Understanding the Special Intensive Revision Process
The SIR, initiated by the ECI in for West Bengal, represents a comprehensive overhaul of electoral rolls ahead of anticipated polls. Unlike routine annual revisions, SIR involves house-to-house enumeration, publication of draft rolls, a claims and objections phase, and final publication. In West Bengal, the process gained urgency due to concerns over bogus voters, infiltrations, and outdated rolls, but it quickly devolved into controversy.
Draft rolls were published on , followed by supplementary lists for "under adjudication" cases. The first supplementary list on listed cases for judicial verification, handled by officers from three other states as per orders to ensure impartiality amid state-ECI friction. Official data reveals massive scale: deletions equivalent to entire constituencies vanishing, with additional millions in limbo. Critics, including the -led state government, accuse the ECI of politically motivated purges, while the defends it as cleansing electoral fraud.
The process's judicialization—now involving 19 led by former High Court judges or Chief Justices—stems from a order dated . Noting "lack of cooperation" between the West Bengal government and ECI, the Court directed this mechanism to hear exclusion appeals, providing a layered remedy beyond booth-level officers.
Timeline of Justice Munshi's Electoral Ordeal
Justice Sahidullah Munshi, elevated to the bench in and retiring in , currently chairs the . His family's plight began post-first SIR notification. “What happened with me was after the first SIR notification was out, we submitted all our documents. Me, my wife and my elder son and my son, we submitted our documents to the Booth Level Officer,” Munshi recounted to Bar & Bench . Despite compliance, their names vanished from draft rolls, prompting worry.
Follow-up led to a verification at the ECI's Entally office in Kolkata, where officials conducted fresh checks and assured resolution. Yet, the first supplementary list brought anomalies: Munshi's name "deleted" or "not found," wife's and son's "under adjudication." No reasons were provided, nor receipts issued for prior submissions—including passport, Aadhaar, and PAN offers.
"So far, only my name has been deleted, while the names of my wife and son are still under consideration. This is extremely humiliating and amounts to harassment,"
he stated.
Munshi flagged family inconsistencies—all documents submitted together, yet divergent statuses—and questioned tribunal grounds: “Apart from the violation ground, there are no other grounds on which I can move the appellate tribunal and if the appellate tribunal does not find it fit, then I have to move the High Court under .” He considered approaching a tribunal but awaited clarity, highlighting opaque guidelines for the 19 bodies.
Steps In Amid Procedural Concerns
The 's intervention has been pivotal. Facing pleas over absent appellate mechanisms, it mandated tribunals to ensure "adequate opportunity" for verification and objections. This addressed ECI-state tensions, with verification now by out-of-state judicial officers. For legal professionals, this creates a hybrid administrative-judicial model: initial ECI/Booth Level Officer (BLO) decisions appealable to tribunals, then potentially High Courts.
Munshi's case exemplifies gaps—lack of reasoned orders breaches 's equality and (hear the other side). No acknowledgment of submissions undermines traceability, a cornerstone of fair process.
Political Firestorm and Allegations of Targeted Deletions
The SIR has ignited a political inferno. TMC leader Mamata Banerjee alleged -orchestrated deletions to "divide the state," citing Munshi: “When a former high court judge’s name is deleted from the voters’ list, one can imagine the plight of ordinary citizens, including the poor and marginalised.” 's Md Salim decried it as Modi's "demographic mission" via propaganda on infiltrators and Rohingyas, forming lawyer-volunteer teams for aid.
Conversely, insists legal remedies exist: “If there has been any error, the person concerned can approach the tribunal as permitted by the court.” Reports of mass exclusions in Muslim-heavy areas, like 427 voters in Malda's Silampur 1 Panchayat, amplify claims of communal targeting. Residents assert full compliance yet final omission, mirroring Munshi's grievances.
Legal Ramifications: and Appellate Remedies
From a legal lens, Munshi's experience spotlights breaches. Administrative actions like deletions demand reasons (per principles evolving under Articles 14, 19, 21). Absent explanations, appeals falter—Munshi noted uncertainty on tribunal grounds beyond procedural lapses.
looms as a safety valve, enabling Calcutta HC writs for (quashing arbitrary deletions) or (compelling inclusion). Tribunals, while innovative, risk overload; their "on-paper" existence, as Munshi quipped, tests efficacy. Election lawyers must now master SIR-specific rules: Form 17 timelines, BLO duties under .
Precedents like Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) affirm voting as fundamental ( ), shielding against arbitrary purges. ECI's silence invites contempt risks if SC directives lapse.
Resolution for Munshi Family, But Questions Linger
Friday's second list rectified Munshi's status, averting tribunal action. Yet, for 60 lakh others, adjudication continues, with deadlines looming. Two deaths linked to stress underscore human costs, prompting TMC outrage.
Broader Implications for Electoral Law and Practice
For legal practitioners, SIR signals surging election litigation. Firms advising political parties or NGOs must prepare voter restoration drives, leveraging tribunals then HCs. It challenges ECI autonomy versus accountability, potentially birthing guidelines on digital receipts, AI verification, and minority safeguards.
Democratically, mass deletions erode trust, risking low turnout or challenges under . Parallels to Assam NRC highlight scalable disenfranchisement perils. Reforms—like mandatory hearings pre-deletion—could mitigate.
In sum, Munshi's reinstatement is a pyrrhic win: exposing SIR's frailties while affirming judicial backstops. As Bengal's polls near, lawyers watch if ECI refines processes or courts impose stricter oversight, safeguarding the franchise's sanctity.
