The Supreme Court on Monday asked Trinamool to file a fresh interim application to substantiate its claim that the party’s “loss margin” against the BJP was less than the number of SIR-deleted voters in 31 Bengal constituencies.

The apex court, however, remained sceptical about entertaining the party’s plea to consider such sizeable SIR deletions as a special “ground” for the defeated candidates to file election petitions requesting that the election of the winner be set aside.

“Whatever you want to say about, as you are now saying with regard to results which may have been materially affected because of the said deletions which are under appeal, that would require an independent IA (interim application) to be taken out,” the bench told senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Trinamool at the resumed hearing of the Bengal SIR case.

At the April 13 hearing, the top court had orally observed it would have to “apply our mind” if the large-scale deletions were deemed to have affected poll outcomes, for instance, when the deletions outnumbered the margin of victory.

On Monday, Banerjee told the court that Trinamool’s total margin of defeat across the state was 32 lakh votes against the “35 lakh appeals” pending before the 19 appellate tribunals. (Of the 34.35 lakh appeals, about 27 lakh are against exclusions and 7 lakh are against inclusions.)

Banerjee also told the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that he had details of 31 constituencies where the BJP’s victory margins were lower than the number of voters deleted. He offered to place the evidence in the court.

He also reminded the court about its April 13 oral assurance about applying its mind to the question whether the large-scale voter deletions had affected the electoral results
in Bengal.

“But suppose the margin of victory is only 2 per cent and 15 per cent of the electorate who are mapped could not vote, then… maybe we have to apply our mind,” the bench had said.

On Monday, the bench said that while Trinamool was free to file a fresh interim application citing the voter deletion-defeat margin issue, the Election Commission too was free to file a counter-affidavit challenging the application’s maintainability and the correctness of the claim.

When Banerjee sought a specific order declaring that the “losing margin” being smaller than the number of deleted voters shall be a ground for filing an election petition before the court, Justice Kant shot back: “How can we do it?”

Currently, the election laws do not provide for declaring a victorious candidate’s election as “void” on the grounds sought by Banerjee. The current grounds, under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are:

n The candidate not being qualified, or being disqualified, on the date of their election to be chosen to fill the seat “under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963)”;

n “Any corrupt practice” by the victorious candidate or their election agent or by anyone else with the consent of the candidate or their election agent;

n The improper rejection of any nomination in that constituency;

n The result being “materially affected (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act”.

Banerjee argued that the appeal process was getting delayed following therecent resignation of the presiding judge of one of thetribunals, former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam.

The bench refused to be drawn, saying: “What canwe do?”

It, however, said it would seek a report from the Calcutta High Court chief justice on the measures that should be taken for “further improvement” of the appeal mechanism.

Menaka Guruswamy, another senior advocate representing Trinamool, told the bench that since about 35 lakh appeals were pending, it would take another 4-5 years fortheir disposal.

“We will find out what to do. Former judges are not readily available,” Justice Kant replied.

Senior advocate D. Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the poll panel, said Trinamool was free to file an application if it felt aggrieved by the SIR process or the appellate proceedings before the tribunals.