Back
Election Commission Reveals 22 Lakh in Bengal SIR: Weighs Disposal
In a significant development before the , the (ECI) has filed a fresh affidavit in the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, providing the long-sought break-up of appeals filed before the . The data reveals that a majority—over 22 lakh—of the total 38.31 lakh appeals were filed by voters whose names were deleted or excluded from the rolls, directly contradicting earlier estimates by petitioners that most challenges were against inclusions. With only 1.26 lakh appeals disposed of and over 37 lakh still pending, the is now examining the Commission’s proposals to expedite disposal, including the creation of more tribunals and the use of location-agnostic software to enable remote hearings.
Affidavit Reveals Breakdown of Appeals
The affidavit, filed in response to an application by Trinamool Congress leader Derek O’Brien, provides the precise numbers that the had been urging the ECI to disclose. Out of 38,31,429 appeals filed before the constituted for the SIR, 22,21,118 were lodged by persons whose names were deleted or excluded from the electoral rolls. The remaining 16,10,311 appeals challenged the inclusion of names — a reversal of the proportion previously stated by petitioners, who had claimed, based on RTI data, that over 80% of appeals were . The Commission’s figures now show that account for roughly 58% of the total, while make up about 42%.
The disclosure is crucial because the Court had earlier flagged — through Justice Bagchi — that an exclusion from the rolls causes an immediate violation of a person’s , which may warrant taking such deletion appeals up first in the priority queue. The larger share of , if accurate, reinforces the urgency of expeditious adjudication.
Pendency Crisis
Despite the high volume of filings, disposal rates remain abysmal. According to the ECI’s numbers, only 1,26,194 appeals have been decided as of the date of the affidavit, leaving 37,05,235 appeals pending before the Tribunals. This represents a disposal rate of just over 3.3%. In a previous affidavit filed in the connected petition of Congress leader Prasenjit Bose, the ECI had stated that over 97% of appeals were pending — a figure that remains substantially unchanged.
The pendency is particularly alarming with elections on the horizon. The Tribunals, which are chaired by judicial officers, have been struggling to cope with the sheer volume of cases. In response, the ECI has now proposed increasing the number of to correspond with the number of parliamentary constituencies in West Bengal. At present, there are only 19 tribunals for the entire state, while the state has 42 Lok Sabha seats. The Commission contends that a tribunal per constituency would allow for more focused and faster disposal.
To support this, the ECI highlighted that its newly developed software is “location-agnostic,” enabling judicial officers to decide appeals from any place of convenience without being physically present at the tribunal location. The Commission claims this technology facilitates speedy disposal, though critics have raised concerns about the lack of physical hearings and the ability of excluded voters — many from rural areas — to effectively participate in remote proceedings.
Prioritization Debate
The breakdown of appeals — exclusion versus inclusion — goes to the heart of a prioritisation debate that the has been grappling with. The Court had earlier observed that appeals by excluded voters involve a direct deprivation of the , which is a fundamental right under read with . Exclusion from the rolls can render a citizen for an entire election cycle, making such appeals inherently time-sensitive.
In contrast, appeals against inclusion typically involve challenges by third parties — such as rival political workers — who seek to remove names that they allege are duplicate or ineligible. While these too raise legitimate concerns about , they do not immediately deprive a voter of their franchise.
The Commission’s data now places a larger weight on the exclusion side, strengthening the case for prioritising those appeals. However, the accuracy of the ECI’s numbers remains in dispute, as petitioners had earlier presented a different picture based on RTI responses. The will likely examine the underlying data to reconcile the two sets of figures, and may direct the Commission to provide granular, constituency-wise data for verification.
Alleged Electoral Impact Contested
Beyond the procedural debate, the ECI has also contested the claim that the appeals process — even the limited adjudication so far — has altered the electoral outcome in any constituency. The affidavit cites four specific Assembly constituencies — Dinhata, Khargram, Bally, and Howrah Uttar — to argue that the number of adjudicated deletions in those seats was lower than the margin of defeat, meaning that even if all deleted voters had voted, it would not have changed the result.
This is a direct rebuttal to allegations made by opposition parties that the SIR process was designed to systematically remove voters opposed to the ruling party, thereby affecting election outcomes. The ECI’s position, if accepted by the Court, would undermine that narrative. However, the petitioners are likely to challenge the selection of these four constituencies as unrepresentative, and may demand a comprehensive, state-wide analysis to prove or disprove any systematic distortion.
ECI’s Proposals Under Scrutiny
The is expected to take up the matter next on the scheduled hearing date, with the focus likely to be on the pace of disposal and the adequacy of the tribunal infrastructure. The ECI’s proposal to expand the number of tribunals from 19 to 42 — one per parliamentary constituency — has been met with cautious approval from petitioners, who have also demanded enhanced video-conferencing facilities and greater transparency in the rejection of appeals.
Notably, questions remain over the 8,649 appeals seeking restoration of names that were rejected by the tribunals. Petitioners have sought details on whether the applicants were given notice and an , and how many of those rejections led to referrals to the on grounds of ‘foreigner’ status — a particularly sensitive issue in West Bengal, where citizenship concerns have been a flashpoint.
Implications for Electoral Law Practice
This case has far-reaching implications for election law in India. The West Bengal SIR is the first large-scale revision of electoral rolls under the ECI’s new software-based system, and the outcome of the ’s monitoring will set precedents for how future revisions are conducted across the country. Legal professionals will be watching closely for any directions on:
- The mandatory prioritisation of over .
- The minimum infrastructure and human resources for .
- The transparency of the rejection process and the right of excluded voters to a .
- The for proving that revisions did not affect electoral outcomes.
The Court’s eventual orders could reshape the procedural framework of the , and the , particularly regarding and the rights of affected voters.
Conclusion
The ECI’s latest affidavit has injected new clarity — and new controversy — into the West Bengal SIR saga. With over 22 lakh still pending, the faces a logistical and constitutional challenge: how to ensure that the is not lost in a bureaucratic backlog. The Commission’s proposals for more tribunals and remote hearings offer a path forward, but questions of fairness, transparency, and accuracy remain unresolved. As the Court prepares to hear the matter, the legal community awaits a judgment that could redefine how India’s electoral machinery protects the voter.
Case Title: []
