Commission changes announced Rules in West Bengal, Judge regrets in Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has raised several concerns over the SIR process in West Bengal. Justice Jaimalya Bagchi said, "It is essential that the appeals process is very robust." Appeals should be considered in cases of exclusion from the voter list.

Justice Bagchi commented, "The right to vote is not only a constitutional right, it is also an emotional one."
The case is being heard in the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant. One of the judges of the bench, Justice Jaymalya Bagchi, has blamed the Election Commission.
Justice Bagchi commented during the hearing that the Election Commission has moved away from the SIR process in Bihar in the case of West Bengal.
 
In West Bengal, the 2002 list, which was prepared through intensive revision or IR, was taken as the benchmark. In the hearing on Bihar's SIR, the Election Commission said that if the name was in that list, then there was no need to submit documents. In West Bengal, the name was excluded even though it was in the 2002 list. The name was excluded despite identifying the relationship or mapping with that list. 
In Bihar, if the name was in the 2002 list, then there was no need to submit documents.

Bagchi said, "Although in other states, logical discrepancies or logical inconsistencies were not systematically excluded, it was in West Bengal." This observation of the judge is considered important by a large section. Because, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, who came to West Bengal, claimed that logical discrepancies were found in 12 states in the second phase of SIR. However, in West Bengal, the number of names under consideration in this process is more.

Justice Bagchi also commented on the workload of the judges involved in the preparation of the voter list. The judiciary was involved in the preparation of the voter list in West Bengal in two stages as per the orders of the Supreme Court. First, judges had to be appointed to settle the names under consideration. Then, on March 10, the Calcutta High Court had to be directed to constitute an appellate tribunal to consider the names that were omitted. The commission prepared the voter list. This is the first time that the judiciary has intervened. Many blame the lack of impartiality and opaque working style of the commission.

Justice Bagchi said that the judges who are working on the examination of applications are under a lot of pressure. They have to dispose of 1,000 applications a day. Even if 70 percent of the decisions are correct, they have to be accepted as good.

Legal website Live Law reports that Justice Bagchi actually mentioned a problem. He said, "According to the Representation of the People Act, an election can be cancelled if someone is not allowed to run illegally. But no matter how large the number, there is no provision in the law to cancel the vote if someone is deprived of the right to vote. But what happens if 10 percent are not allowed to vote and the margin of votes is more than 10 percent?" Or, if the margin of victory or defeat in the election results is 2 percent, and 15 percent of the voters were not able to vote despite being in the mapping, what would happen in this case? We are not giving any opinion, but it should be kept as a matter of fact.

It is worth noting that the Election Commission has also excluded many names that are related to the 'mapping' or 2002 list due to logical discrepancies. 
The appeal of a section of the people who had appealed to the tribunal was also considered in the hearing on Monday. An application was made to postpone the deadline for 'freezing' the list. The complaint in this application is that the Election Commission is not providing the necessary assistance to the tribunal by providing the correct documents.
@freemang2001gmail-com