Supreme Court Orders Out-of-Turn Hearings for WB Voter Appeals Amid SIR Controversies

In a significant intervention during West Bengal's ongoing assembly elections, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant has directed Appellate Tribunals (ATs) constituted under the state's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process to accord out-of-turn hearings to appeals demonstrating urgency, particularly those concerning exclusions from electoral rolls. The Court, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, also granted liberty to aggrieved voters to approach the Calcutta High Court on either the administrative or judicial side for redressal of lingering grievances. This order, passed in Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India (W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 and connected matters), underscores the Apex Court's commitment to balancing electoral timelines with fundamental voting rights, even as Phase I polling recorded a record 91.8-92% voter turnout on April 23, 2025 . With approximately 27 lakh appeals pending out of massive deletions totaling nearly 91 lakh voters , the directives aim to expedite resolutions without disrupting the poll process.

Context of West Bengal's Special Intensive Revision

West Bengal's electoral landscape has been under intense scrutiny due to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls, initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI) . The draft rolls published in December 2024 led to over 60 lakh claims and objections , culminating in the final roll on February 28, 2025 . This process resulted in the exclusion of more than 61 lakh voters initially , escalating to 91 lakh deletions —representing about 11.9% of the pre-revision electorate of 7.6 crore . Post-SIR, the state's total electorate stands at 70,459,284 , down from 76,637,529 .

The SIR was a response to concerns over "doubtful and pending" entries, with judicial officers of district judge rank adjudicating claims by April 6, 2025 . Aggrieved persons whose inclusion claims were rejected or who faced deletions could appeal to 19 Appellate Tribunals manned by former High Court judges, as ordered by the Supreme Court on March 10, 2025 . Earlier, on February 20 , the Court mandated the appointment of district/additional district judges to accelerate the revision. Despite these measures, disposal rates remained abysmally low: only 139 appeals (out of 27 lakh exclusion challenges and 7 lakh inclusion objections) were decided before Phase I cut-offs, with a 98.5% approval rate .

This backdrop of large-scale deletions— 2.7 million during adjudication alone —fueled litigation, especially as elections commenced with rolls frozen on April 9 for Phase I (152 constituencies on April 23) and Phase II ( April 29 ).

Key Directives from the Apex Court

Acknowledging that "most issues have been comprehensively answered by our April 13 order," the bench recognized ongoing "day-to-day" challenges. It explicitly stated:

"Liberty is given to approach the Chief Justice on administrative side for redressal of pending issues. As regards to those who have been excluded, and those who have filed appeals, directions will be separately issued requesting ATs to give out of turn hearings to those who are able to make out case of urgency. If matter requires judicial intervention, petitioner or similarly placed persons can approach the High Court on judicial side."

This multi-pronged remedy empowers voters to seek prioritized tribunal hearings upon proving urgency, escalating to the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice administratively for listing or judicially for substantive relief. The Court clarified that mere pendency of appeals does not confer a voting right , aligning with prior directives linking inclusion to tribunal approvals before cut-offs ( April 21 for Phase I, April 27 for Phase II).

Hearing Highlights: Slow Disposal and Specific Grievances

During the April 25 hearing, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay (also referred to as Banerjee) highlighted the glacial pace: "only 139 appeals out of 27 lakhs were decided by the Tribunals before the cut-off date... We need most speedy disposal." Variations in reports noted 136 or 138 decisions, with just two rejections.

A poignant grievance involved 65 election duty officers deleted despite their EPIC numbers appearing in duty orders. Senior Advocate MR Shamshad termed it "on the face arbitrary." The bench, however, refused direct intervention, directing them to ATs:

“This election, yes, perhaps they cannot vote... The more valuable right to remain on the rolls shall be preserved.”

The Court emphasized preserving long-term enrollment over immediate voting, refusing to "change our orders every day."

Appearances included Senior Advocates Rauf Rahim , Menaka Guruswamy , Siddharth Luthra , DS Naidu , and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta .

Remarks on Election Duty Personnel and Voter Rights

The bench drew a clear distinction between transient voting disenfranchisement and permanent exclusion. For duty personnel, Justice Bagchi noted the tribunals would scrutinize their right to rolls post-polls. This reflects judicial pragmatism : intervening mid-election risks chaos, but post-poll remedies safeguard Article 326 rights under the Constitution.

Record Voter Turnout and Judicial Observations

Post-Phase I, Bandhopadhyay reported 92-96% turnout , attributing it to migrant workers' return amid fears of future deletions. CJI Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi lauded this as democracy's strength:

Justice Bagchi: “This country needs people to participate. We do not want blood.”

CJI Kant: “When people realise their power of vote in a democracy with such participation and 97% voting. Because they realise the strength that lies in their voting right and not in violence or fighting.”

Polling in remaining constituencies occurred April 29 , with results due May 4 .

Recap of Previous Supreme Court Interventions

The instant order builds on April 16 directives for supplementary electoral rolls incorporating tribunal approvals by cut-offs. Rolls were frozen April 9 , but successful appellants pre- April 21 /27 were to vote in respective phases. The April 13 order had addressed core issues, yet fresh concerns persisted.

Legal Implications and Precedent

This ruling reinforces judicial restraint in electoral matters (precedent: Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner ), prioritizing process integrity. The out-of-turn hearing protocol introduces flexibility in tribunal jurisprudence, akin to Article 32/226 urgency listings. It invokes administrative side remedies under High Court rules, streamlining without full writs.

Constitutionally, it upholds right to vote as statutory yet fundamental ( Mohd. Qasim v. State of WB ), tempered by revision necessities under Representation of People Act, 1950/1951 . The 98.5% approval rate questions SIR's proportionality—potential for future challenges on arbitrariness ( Article 14 ).

Impacts on Electoral Litigation and Administrative Law

For legal practitioners, this expands strategic fora : tribunals first (speedy, specialized), HC administrative (listing alacrity), judicial (merits). Election lawyers must master urgency affidavits (e.g., duty obligations, imminent polls). Administratively, it pressures ATs/ECI for efficiency, modeling nationwide SIR/SVR.

Broader justice system: Enhances voter confidence post-deletions, reduces pendency (34 lakh total appeals), promotes tech-enabled tracking. For constitutional litigators, it signals SC's poll-season role as overseer, not disruptor.

Looking Ahead

With Phase II underway, these directives could reinstate thousands, shaping outcomes in tight contests. Results on May 4 will test efficacy. Long-term, expect ECI guidelines on SIR urgency protocols, influencing 2026 state polls. The SC's balanced approach exemplifies democratic safeguarding amid scale.