The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Election Commission of India and the Bengal government on a plea for deploying central forces in the state for the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of the voter list.
During the arguments, the court orally observed that there would be “anarchy” if booth-level officers (BLOs) and other election staff were attacked. The court also assured the EC that necessary orders would be passed if there was a lack of cooperation from states.
The plea for the deployment of the central armed police force (CAPF) was made by senior advocate V. Giri, who represented an organisation, Sanatani Sangsad. Giri justified the demand, citing the alleged attack on BLOs in Bengal and violence during the previous Assembly elections.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, appeared irked over a spate of petitions being filed in the court relating to the pan-India SIR exercise.
“All the politicians are coming here (Supreme Court) because they think this platform is highlighting them…,” the CJI orally observed.
Justice Bagchi said that although there were allegations of attacks on BLOs, there was only one FIR in this regard.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who appeared for the EC, said the poll panel was facing certain difficulties as the police machinery was under the control of the state, prompting the CJI to say: “To protect the BLOs, it has to be under your control, or the Union government.”
Dwivedi replied that the state government had to trust the EC, otherwise, it might become necessary for the deployment of the CAPF.
Dwivedi said “a lot of political narratives are being floated in the court too” and submitted that there was no pressure on the BLOs to meet the deadline. He said on average, a BLO had to deal with over 37 voters, roughly covering seven to eight houses in a hamlet.
“We are not concerned about the political parties’ blame games,” the CJI remarked.
Justice Bagchi said that unless and until the election process commenced, the police machinery couldn't come under the control of the EC.
“We are sympathetic to your cause, but we are also trying to find out whether there is a narrative? We find obstruction only in one FIR, should directions be passed only in WB? Is it a unique instance in WB only?” the bench said while assuring that it would pass appropriate directions if and when the EC brought to its notice the lack of cooperation by any state government.
The court also said: “Instead of you (EC) coming, someone else (organisation) is coming. We cannot believe that there is an isolated incident. This will become a serious issue if BLOs are not getting security."
“We will take action. We have enough powers,” Dwivedi said, to which the bench replied: “That has to be, otherwise there will be anarchy.”
Citizenship row
The bench, however, told another NGO Atmadeep that the question of voter enrolment of those who had entered India because of persecution in the neighbouring countries could be determined only after verifying their citizenship claims.
“You have not been conferred citizenship so far. Under the amendment law (CAA-2019) you will have to qualify for citizenship. Whether you are a minority under the act etc, these are questions of law, unless these plans are determined, the question of getting enrolled will arise,” the bench said.
“First, you apply for citizenship, then the question of coming on roll comes.”