For anyone who has avidly studied the Indian Constitution and the role of judiciary in the constitutional scheme to translate the spirit of the freedom struggle, what has come from the Supreme Court is shocking. One of the judges who was part of the three-member bench of the apex court which was examining the issues thrown up by the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in West Bengal stated, “If someone cannot vote in this election, does that mean their right can be deprived forever?” Such a creative interpretation of the right to vote which has been recognised as a constitutional right, both in the Constitution as well as in a plethora of judgments by the very same Supreme Court, is bizarre. Conversely, does it mean that the right to vote can be treated as a postdated cheque which could be encashed only when the necessity has lapsed?

People’s Democracy has commented repeatedly, and at length, on the SIR process, particularly in West Bengal. The proceedings of the apex court on the matter have brought down the curtains for eligibility of voters in the current assembly election in West Bengal. But far from achieving any finality, this will stir up the biggest controversy on a fundamental constitutional question. Taking forward the observation of the judge, on April 6, the Supreme Court stamped its approval for the obnoxious nature of the SIR process in West Bengal. After having deleted a little more than 60 lakh voters from the existing Electoral Roll initially, the Election Commission of India (ECI) had singled out West Bengal on a most controversial course of finding out lack of “logical consistency”. Contrary to resorting to an intensive physical exercise, it was software driven, algorithm generated revisit of the Electoral Roll of unmapped voters.

To give an inkling of the magnitude of disenfranchisement, a little more than 60 lakh people were disenfranchised from the existing roll in the process of mapping, which meant linking the voters with the 2002-03 Electoral Rolls. But, contrary to the purpose with which the SIR process was initiated, the ECI found the total number rendered for potential deletion too small. The presumption was of course not based on any concrete study, but statements by state-level BJP leaders and Amit Shah, who were declaring from the roof tops that there were one and a half crore infiltrators, including Rohingyas, in the West Bengal rolls; therefore, this new invention of “logical consistency”. Those who were presumed to be doubtful to clear this new bar were clubbed into a new category of ‘under adjudication’. This obviously is about a section of the voters who had completed the first stage of verification by successfully including themselves in the mapping process. In such circumstances, the 60 lakh voters in this category of ‘under adjudication’ implied a premeditated axing of voters.

During the April 6 proceedings, the ECI counsel announced that roughly 27 lakh voters cannot come out clean. Earlier, in the third week of March, the apex court had ordered the setting up of judicial tribunals for those who were still unable to be restored back on the rolls, to seek redressal. However, it was officially admitted during the same hearing that these tribunals though notified, were yet to become operational. Despite the great difficulty, those under adjudication had actually forgone their daily wages and traversed great distances to reach the hearing centres. Yet, their names could not be restored. The April 6 proceedings also allowed the ECI to freeze the final Electoral Rolls, stamping approval for deletion of about 91 lakh voters, 12 per cent of the total electorate. Even the court could not help admitting that this was a huge number. But, what is shocking and painful is that the apex court did not accord precedence to the constitutional right of the voter over the premeditated exercise of the ECI, not to revise but to ensure mass disenfranchisement.

In a country where established jurisprudence recognises that even one innocent cannot be sacrificed for letting off a hundred criminals, such a huge number of deletions is an absolute constitutional travesty. How arbitrary the whole process of categorising “under adjudication” was became clear when on the very same day the Supreme Court intervened to ensure Mohtab Shaikh, the Congress candidate from Farakka, to be restored back to the roll. Former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court held a special hearing for evaluating his papers. Shaikh submitted his passport, the document he had given as a part of the SIR. The former HC CJ noted in his order, stated that the ECI had cited ‘technical reasons’ for not submitting the circumstances leading to the deletion during adjudication. It was finally held that the passport was sufficient and the ECI was directed to include Shaikh as a valid voter. This was the clinching proof that such shoddy deletions had indeed marred the process.

That opacity has been the hallmark of the exercise was clear from the fact that the “under adjudication” list was produced in non-machine readable PDF versions, which made it impossible to analyse the results. The well-respected fact check site, Alt News, had studied two assembly constituencies in Kolkata and found that as opposed to the initial list of those who could not be mapped, Muslims were deleted in disproportionate numbers. The website claimed that researchers had meticulously digitised the PDF files and reconstructed the digital versions to carry out analysis. There have been several studies which come out with the same inference that those who suffer economic and social inequalities are overwhelmingly part of those who fell through the cracks of this clearly pre-conceived process. Even within that, Muslims and women are the highest in terms of disenfranchisement.

On the very same day, on April 6, the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman announced that the impeachment motion against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar, stands dismissed. The impeachment motion was moved by 123 members of Lok Sabha and 60 members of the Rajya Sabha had been summarily dismissed without citing any specific reason.

The claws and the fangs are out. The corporate communal nexus is desperate. The political agencies of the RSS-BJP combine are working overtime to overcome that despair. The ECI or the highest judiciary, by extension is not prepared to value the basic constitutional right of the citizen, the right to vote. The refusal sadly is determined by gender and religious identities. One can only recall the 1930s’ Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany. Neo-fascist features are increasingly evident on the Indian horizon!