Back
Election Commission Disputes in TMC Claim That SIR Deletions Altered Bengal Election Results
The has firmly contested before the the allegation that deletions made during the of electoral rolls in West Bengal altered the outcome of the 2026 Assembly elections in 31 constituencies. In its affidavit filed in response to an application by Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien, the poll body argued that the party’s claim rests on a misleading conflation of different categories of deletions and that the numbers cited do not support the theory of electoral manipulation. The is now examining whether the relief sought—declaring the results void and ordering fresh polls—can be granted, given the on challenging elections except through election petitions.
Background: The SIR and the Pending Appeals Flood
The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal, conducted ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections, led to a significant reduction in the number of electors. According to data placed before the Court, the rolls shrank from 7,66,37,529 electors in the pre-draft roll of , to 6,44,52,609 in the final roll of —a net decrease of over 1.21 crore names. Of these, 60,06,675 electors were marked as “adjudicated” and were not part of the final roll.
The process generated an enormous number of appeals: a total of 38,31,429 appeals were filed before appellate tribunals, of which only 1,26,194 have been decided, leaving 37,05,235 pending. Murshidabad district alone accounted for 7,48,216 appeals, while Malda had 5,31,617. The pendency has been a central grievance of the TMC, which argues that the deletions—many still under challenge—effectively disenfranchised voters and skewed the results in seats the party lost by narrow margins.
ECI’s Core Objection: Conflating Categories
The ECI’s affidavit drew a sharp distinction between two types of deletions. First, removals under the “Absentee, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate” (ASDD) categories, which the Commission said were routine clean-up actions based on field verification and not subject to adjudication by Judicial Officers. Second, deletions made after a contested adjudication process, where objections were raised and notices issued. The Commission contended that O’Brien’s figures improperly clubbed ASDD removals with , creating a misleading narrative.
“The attempt of the Applicant to portray all deletions as ‘’ is wholly incorrect and misleading. Even more troubling is the false projection that appeals against all such deletions were pending before the Learned Judicial Officers,” the affidavit stated. The ECI submitted that notices were issued only in cases referred for adjudication, and that ASDD removals were never placed before Judicial Officers.
Margin of Defeat vs. : The Numbers
To demonstrate that the adjudication exercise did not alter electoral outcomes, the ECI provided constituency-specific comparisons. In four sample seats where the TMC lost, the number of was lower than the margin of defeat:
- Dinhata (Coochbehar) : Loss margin 17,447; 17,274
- Khargram (SC) (Murshidabad) : Loss margin 9,333; 4,258
- Bally (Howrah) : Loss margin 11,997; 11,386
- Howrah Uttar (Howrah) : Loss margin 11,250; 11,179
The Commission argued that even if all were assumed to be TMC voters, the margins of defeat exceed those numbers, “completely demolishing” O’Brien’s speculative theory.
The Reverse Test: 21 Seats Won by TMC
The ECI also turned the argument on its head. It pointed out that in 21 constituencies won by the TMC, the number of exceeded the victory margin. For instance:
- Sitai (SC) : Victory margin 2,721; 20,213
- Samserganj : Victory margin 7,587; 74,775
- Lalgola : Victory margin 18,960; 55,420
If the TMC’s logic were applied consistently, the results in these 21 seats would also be suspect, the Commission argued. This selective reliance on the margin-versus-deletion test, it said, undermined the foundation of the application.
The Constitutional Hurdle: Article 329(b)
Beyond the factual dispute, the ECI raised a preliminary legal objection under , which provides that an election to Parliament or a State Legislature can be called into question only by an presented in the manner prescribed by law. Relying on settled precedents, the Commission submitted that a challenge to an election on the ground of a defect in the electoral roll is not maintainable through a . The proper remedy is an under the .
The affidavit noted that election petitions have already been filed in respect of two of the 31 constituencies—Pandabeswar and Rajarhat New Town—indicating that the TMC could pursue that route. The ECI accused O’Brien of attempting to bypass the statutory mechanism.
Other Proceedings: Prasenjit Bose’s Petition
Separately, the ECI filed a counter affidavit in a petition by economist Prasenjit Bose, who sought constituency-wise SIR data and changes to the appeals process. The Commission placed the data on record and noted that the prayers regarding the functioning and accessibility of appellate tribunals fall within the Standard Operating Procedure framed for them. The had earlier granted liberty to parties to approach the on these administrative issues.
Court’s Query and the Way Forward
When the matter was last heard, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana asked the ECI whether it could direct fresh elections. The Commission has now made its position clear: the relief is not legally available, and even on the facts, the TMC’s case does not hold.
The is expected to hear the matter further, and the outcome will have significant implications for electoral integrity challenges across the country. The case raises fundamental questions about the weight to be given to roll deletions when evaluating election results, and the boundary between the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the exclusive election-petition remedy.
Legal Analysis: Why This Matters
The ECI’s response is notable for its detailed factual rebuttal and its reliance on well-established constitutional principles. By insisting that only are comparable to the margin of defeat, the Commission seeks to narrow the scope of judicial scrutiny of electoral rolls. The ASDD category, which accounts for a large share of deletions, is presented as a routine administrative exercise—not an act of disenfranchisement.
At the same time, the Article 329(b) argument reinforces a long line of authority that insulates declared election results from . The has repeatedly held that the election-petition route is the only way to challenge an election, and that defects in the roll are not grounds for a writ. If the Court accepts this argument, it would effectively shut the door on the TMC’s plea, leaving the party to pursue individual election petitions—a far more cumbersome and time-consuming process.
Conclusion
The Election Commission’s affidavit has injected both factual clarity and legal rigor into the dispute over West Bengal’s electoral rolls. By disentangling from routine clean-up, and by invoking the against collateral challenges, the ECI has put forward a strong case against the TMC’s demand for fresh polls. The ’s ruling, when it comes, will likely clarify the extent to which electoral roll defects can be used to unsettle election results—a question of profound importance for India’s democratic process.
