New Delhi, April 2 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the "valuable" right to vote cannot be "washed out" in a manner that creates an "oppressive" situation for citizens as it allowed tribunals set up in West Bengal to hear appeals of voters in the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) exercise to even examine fresh documents after verification. The order was passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on being informed that 19 tribunals headed by former high court chief justices and judges have been set up to provide a second round of appeal to votes classified under "logical discrepancy" by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Earlier, their objections were dealt with by judicial officers in the first round. Out of a total of six million objections, as on date, 4.7 million cases have been decided by about 500 judicial officers from West Bengal along with over 200 judicial officers drawn from Jharkhand and Odisha. The electoral rolls published on February 28 had already excised over 6.3 million names. The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, said, "If the exclusion (from the electoral roll) is found unwarranted, we see no reason why the decision should not be altered by the tribunal and also if a person is incorrectly included, we see no reason why the entire cleansing exercise should not be gone into." It directed ECI to provide tribunal members access to all records along with reasons for exclusion or inclusion of names in the roll. The bench was conscious of the fact that only the names cleared by the tribunal till the final date for filing nominations (as decided for the two-phase assembly polls) will be eligible to vote. However, there was a larger concern the court shared. The tribunal was allowed to devise its own procedure and was permitted to even entertain fresh documents (not filed during the first round of adjudication). However, the bench clarified, "We request the tribunal not to entertain fresh documents without verifying their genuineness." Senior advocate Dama Sesadari Naidu appearing for ECI objected to this order, saying, "Entertaining fresh documents will open a Pandora's Box. They were already provided an opportunity to file documents and they have chosen not to file." However, the court left it to the discretion of the tribunal members. Naidu requested the court to consider having a timeframe for tribunals to pass orders. The court posted the matter for further hearing on April 6....