No urgency to hear SIR exclusion pleas: CJI’s comment on democracy’s soul draws backlash

The Supreme Court’s rejection of a petition that sought an urgent hearing on the pending appeals of voters excluded in the SIR, ahead of the by-elections in two constituencies in West Bengal, along with the Chief Justice’s comment, “these are only by-elections,” which created a feeling of denigrating the very democratic right, drew widespread criticism from various quarters.

Trinamool Congress MP and staunch critic of the BJP and RSS, Mahua Moitra, wrote on X as a reminder to Chief Justice Surya Kant about the democratic duty he should be obliged to perform, and in another post, she was sarcastic, saying that there was no urgency as it was not Arnab Goswami’s bail petition, referring to the SC’s haste in giving bail to Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami.

“‘Only’ a by-election. ‘They can vote in the next election’—these are statements made by the highest court of this land. My Lords, with due humility, you are entrusted with upholding our Constitution, how can you be so guilty of dereliction of duty? How?”, Mahua wrote on X.

In another X post, she said, “What’s the urgency, this isn’t Arnab Goswami’s bail petition after all…”

The reference was to the criticism surrounding the Supreme Court’s speedy listing and hearing of his matter and its subsequent grant of interim bail. His petition was filed on April 23, 2020, and was listed for hearing the next morning; later, in November 2020, the Supreme Court again granted him interim bail following his arrest.

The petition, which came before a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana on Monday, was concerned with more than 18,000 appeals pending before the tribunals for a final call.

Those voters had already been deprived of their very right to vote in the last Assembly elections and are likely to miss the coming by-election, which is scheduled to be held on October 6, and the court set October 5 for the next hearing.

Responding to the SC court’s statement, CJP co-convenor Ashutosh Ranka alleged that the judiciary was as much involved in the electoral fraud as Gyanesh Kumar.

His X post read: “Judiciary is as much to blame for electoral fraud as Gyanesh Kumar.”

Journalist Prashant Tandon questioned the court’s approach, asking whether the Supreme Court was taking the right to vote lightly, while former bureaucrat Ashish Joshi said there was “clearly a crisis of intellectual depth and understanding”, arguing that the Constitution does not classify some votes as more important than others.

NCP-SP leader Jitendra Awhad said autonomous and legal institutions and the ruling class had created an “unprecedented threat” to the Constitution. Former civil servant N.N. Ojha questioned whether universal adult franchise had ceased to be a constitutional right. Activist Suraj Kumar Bauddh said calling an election “only a by-election” while thousands of voters awaited justice was deeply troubling.

The appeals are pending before appellate tribunals set up pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions. Of the 38.31 lakh appeals filed, only 1,26,194 had been decided by September 16, leaving 37,05,235 pending.

The Election Commission has indicated it is open to increasing tribunals from 19 to 42. The Supreme Court will hear the matter on October 5, a day before the Nandigram and Rejinagar bypolls.