![]()
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from West Bengal and Election Commission to a PIL which alleged that the state govt was denying benefits of social welfare schemes, including ration, to people whose names were deleted from the voter list because of doubtful citizenship during special intensive revision (SIR).On a PIL by Prasenjit Bose, chairperson of WB Pradesh Congress Committee and convenor of Joint Forum against NRC, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said EC had the constitutional power to delete a person's name from the voter list if his/her citizenship was doubtful."But EC cannot determine whether a person is a citizen of India or not. While dealing with SIR in Bihar and West Bengal, we had repeatedly said that EC is not the authority to decide a person's citizenship status," the bench said. Only 1% of SIR appeals decided, welfare benefits denied, SC told
However, he said the BJP govt was equating the EC decision to delete people's names from the voter list as final adjudication of citizenship and depriving them of receiving benefits under welfare schemes - foodgrain under the public distribution system and the Annapurna Yojana. The state govt had earlier clarified that people whose names were deleted from the voter list after SIR but had filed appeals before the tribunals would continue to receive ration and benefits under the Annapurna scheme.
Bringing another contentious issue to the court's notice, the petitioner said the state govt had issued an order asking authorities to reverify caste certificates issued to people and their dependants whose names were deleted from the voter list during SIR, for possible cancellation.Quoting a TOI report of July 2, the petitioner said only 1% of appeals have so far been adjudicated by the appellate tribunals and apprehended that it could be an unending exercise that could deprive many of welfare scheme benefits. The bench said speedy adjudication of appeals must be pleaded before the Calcutta HC chief justice. However, it entertained the plea on other issues and posted the matter for further hearing on Aug 25.
.png)







English (US) ·