Kolkata: Former Calcutta High Court judge Sahidullah Munshi has raised concerns over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal after authorities marked him as “not found” despite repeated document submission and verification.
Munshi said he and his family submitted all required documents soon after the first notification. The Booth Level Officer received their papers. Their names did not appear in the draft rolls, which led to anxiety. Officials later called them for fresh verification at the Entally office. Munshi submitted all documents again, including his passport, and expected clearance.
The supplementary list brought fresh confusion. His wife and son appeared as “under adjudication,” while his own name appeared as “not found.” He said no reason was shared for this classification. He added that the process lacked transparency since officials did not issue receipts for submitted documents. This leaves applicants without proof of submission and without clarity on rejection grounds.
Munshi said he chose not to rely on his past position as a High Court judge. He aimed to be treated like any other citizen and relied only on standard documents. He questioned how a person in his position faces such uncertainty despite full compliance.
He also raised doubts about the appellate system. Nineteen appellate tribunals exist on record. Clear procedures or operational guidelines remain absent. He said this creates confusion for applicants seeking remedy. Without stated reasons for deletion, filing an appeal becomes difficult.
Munshi noted that legal options remain limited. A person may raise violation of natural justice. If relief does not come from the tribunal, the matter may reach the High Court under Article 226.
The Special Intensive Revision includes fresh verification, draft publication, and a claims and objections process. The exercise has drawn attention in the Supreme Court, which directed authorities to provide fair opportunity for verification and objections. Judicial officers from three states now conduct the process following a court directive aimed at resolving coordination issues between the state government and the Election Commission.
