In the course of the listening to of the West Bengal Particular Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court docket orally commented that the inclusion of an individual within the electoral roll by way of Kind 6 (registration kind for brand new voter) is not going to give them a proper to vote within the current meeting election, if such inclusion is after the ‘qualifying date’ notifed by the Election Fee.
As per Part 14(b) of the Illustration of the Individuals Act, 1950, the qualifying date for preparation or revision of the electoral roll is the first day of January, April, July, and October of the 12 months, on the subject of which an individual should have attained the age of eighteen years to be eligible for registration as an elector.
Justice Bagchi distinguished between an individual’s proper to get enrolled within the electoral roll by way of Kind 6 vis-a-vis their proper to vote as per the electoral rolls that go for polls as per the qualifying date introduced by the Election Fee of India.
Justice Bagchi additional mentioned that it’s due to the ‘qualifying date’ cut-off that the Court docket, in its order handed on February 24, clarified that the supplementary last lists revealed will likely be deemed to be a part of the primary last record revealed on February 28.
“There are variations. One is an modification of the electoral roll, one other is the electoral roll which works for polls. The electoral roll which works for polls is as per the qualifying date, which is introduced by the ECI. That’s the reason we needed to go the order that supplementary record […] That doesn’t take away a person’s proper to [include] himself underneath Kind 6 however his inclusion is not going to give him the suitable to vote”, mentioned Justice Bagchi.
Justice Bagchi additionally noticed that incorrect inclusions/exclusions will be corrected by the Tribunals.
“Even when an individual is excluded at present, and is unable to vote on this explicit election, however that exclusion seems to be unjustified to a Tribunal headed by a former Chief Justice, we see no purpose why the choice can’t be altered and he will be included. And likewise, an individual incorrectly included, and votes on this election, and your consultant makes a report back to the Tribunal, we see no purpose why the complete cleansing train taken by you shouldn’t be taken to its logical conclusion”
The matter was listed earlier than a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi which, after listening to the events, allowed the Appellate Tribunals listening to appeals towards exclusions from West Bengal’s electoral rolls to entertain recent paperwork topic to verification.
In the course of the listening to, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Kalyan Banerjee (for petitioners) alleged that substantial numbers of Kind 6 (Utility Kind for New Voters) had been being deposited whereas adjudication of claims/objections is occurring. Banerjee, particularly, claimed {that a} notification has been issued by ECI on 27 March extending the time for submitting of Kind 6 and 30,000 Kind 6 have been deposited by 1 particular person alone. The senior counsel additional prayed that the main points of Kind 6 deposited with ECI be revealed booth-wise.
Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for ECI, countered these submissions by asserting that if an individual has a real proper to be enrolled onto the electoral roll, that proper can’t be thwarted. Additional, if somebody has a grievance, there’s an possibility to lift objection by way of Kind 7.
This led Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for petitioners, to contend, “However what’s the qualifying date? There needs to be a qualifying date underneath the statute. Now they’ve arbitrarily modified the date, opening the floodgates, towards the statute”.
The CJI commented that the petitioners’ averments had been solely verbal submissions, and nothing had been positioned on report. The CJI additionally recommended at one level that the problem be raised earlier than the Appellate Tribunal.
Finally, because the Calcutta Excessive Court docket Chief Justice said in his letter to the Court docket that pending adjudications would seemingly be determined by April 7, the matter was posted on April 6.
Case Title: MOSTARI BANU Versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and related circumstances)
Additionally from the listening to – West Bengal SIR | Appellate Tribunals Can Entertain Recent Paperwork After Verifying Genuineness : Supreme Court docket
 matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court orally commented that the inclusion of a person in the electoral roll...){kind=link}