New Delhi: Expressing concerns over a possible scenario wherein the winning margin in the upcoming West Bengal assembly elections ends up being equal or less than the number of voters excluded from voter list owing to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of the Election Commission of India (ECI), Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Monday (April 13) emphasised on the need for a “robust appellate mechanism” to consider the appeals filed by persons who were deleted from the electoral rolls.“If 10% of the electorate does not vote and the winning margin is more than 10%…what will happen? Suppose margin is 2% and 15% of electorate who are mapped could not vote, then maybe, we are not expressing any opinion, but we would definitely have to apply our minds. Please keep this in mind that the concern of a vigilant voter whose name correctly or incorrectly is not in the list is not in our minds,” Justice Bagchi told the ECI on Monday, reported LiveLaw.Justice Bagchi also highlighted the fact that in the case of West Bengal, the ECI deviated from the process in other states and introduced a new category of ‘Logical Discrepancy’. He made the remarks while a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by petitioners, whose appeals against their exclusions from the voter roll in West Bengal are pending before the Appellate Tribunals.“We employed judicial officers where there was trust deficit. The volume at which they have to do, there is a chance of error. If you go through 1000 documents a day, if the accuracy is 70 percent then the activity should be rated as excellent. There will always be a margin of error. We need to have a robust appellate mechanism and a continuing right,” said Justice Bagchi, reported LiveLaw.“Right to vote in a country you were born is not only constitutional but sentimental. It is like you are a part of democracy and help in electing a government,” he added.While noting that the 19 tribunals will have to hear more than a lakh appeals, Justice Bagchi added that the tribunals must hear the appeals on the “principles of inclusion.”However, CJI Kant expressed reluctance to interfere by saying that the Tribunal should decide. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the ECI was not cooperating with the Appellate Tribunal by producing the materials.“We will not entertain this. Better you pursue there (before AT). Once documents have been scrutinized…,” said CJI Kant, refusing to entertain the petitions.The bench dismissed the petition, leaving open the remedy of appeal to the petitioners. If the petitioners’ appeals are allowed, “necessary consequences shall follow,” the bench clarified.