In the proceedings concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal, the Supreme Court today took note of the functioning of appellate tribunals.

The Court was informed that while the initial verification exercise had largely been completed, the appellate mechanism was struggling to cope with the volume of appeals, with counsel pointing to ground realities such as “very lengthy queues just for filing of these appeals” and the fact that “very few appeals were taken up by the 19 appellate tribunals so far,” despite the imminent election schedule. Concerns were also raised about the lack of clarity in procedure, the absence of proper receipts for documents, and limitations in the online filing format, which restricted parties from placing full material before the tribunals.

Recognising the need for institutional clarity, the Court made a significant observation on procedural uniformity, stating in clear terms: “it seems to us that in order to bring uniformity in the appellate procedure, it will be appropriate that it is formally prescribed,” and accordingly directed that a structured framework be put in place. It went on to request the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to constitute a committee, observing: “we request the Chief Justice of Calcutta to constitute a team of senior-most judges to lay down the procedure to be followed by the appellate tribunals.”

Emphasising urgency given the electoral timeline, the Court further directed: “the committee to be constituted immediately so that procedure can be notified tomorrow in order to expedite the disposal of appeals.” At the same time, it recorded assurances from the Election Commission of India regarding the readiness of infrastructure, noting:

“we are informed by the ECI that the venue of the appellate tribunals and the requisite infrastructure has been made available and the appellate tribunals are ready to function from the allocated premises.”

The Court also addressed the payments to former judges heading these bodies, directing that “regarding honorarium and the incidental expenses of the former judges, payment [be] made without any delay,” and calling for prompt issuance of necessary notifications to operationalise the system fully.

While suggestions were made to fast-track disposal or provisionally include appellants in electoral rolls, the Bench remained cautious about compromising procedural fairness, observing that “compressing the scope… may result in a very hasty exercise.”

Appearances

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu

SG Tushar Mehta

Sr advs Kapil Sibal & Menaka Guruswamy