Back
Orders ECI to Prioritize ; 80% of Bengal SIR Cases Seek
The on Tuesday directed the to provide a detailed break-up of the staggering 38.1 lakh appeals pending before the in West Bengal, after being informed that nearly 80% of these cases seek to disenfranchise voters rather than restore their names. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, expressed deep concern over the data, which revealed that only about 7 lakh appeals were filed by persons excluded from the electoral rolls, while 31 lakh challenged the inclusion of others.
The Bench also heard submissions from the alleging that in 31 Assembly constituencies, the winning margin of the over the TMC was smaller than the number of voters deleted from the rolls. The Court indicated it may examine whether could be ordered in affected constituencies, depending on the data to be furnished by the ECI.
Stark Statistics from RTI Reply
, appearing for the petitioner, placed before the Court shocking figures obtained through a reply given to MP Isha Khan Choudhary by the . “Total appeals submitted — 38 lakh 10 thousand. So far, about 83,000 or so are decisions. See the consequence. Included in e-roll: 75,443. Were it not for the setting up of Tribunals, they would have been disenfranchised!” Sankaranarayanan submitted.
He further informed that out of the 83,000 appeals against exclusions decided so far, over 75,000 had been allowed — nearly 90% in favour of voters. “This lion’s share of appeals seeking can’t burden this Tribunal in priority. Let the Tribunals prioritize those who were excluded. There is a track record of 95% of them being directed to be included eventually,” he argued.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that if the figures were accurate, “very large chunk of appeals are for inclusions.” Sankaranarayanan described the situation as “appalling” and noted that the data should have been furnished by the ECI to the Court voluntarily, but surfaced only through an MP’s RTI application.
Prioritising
Sankaranarayanan proposed that the appellate tribunals be directed to prioritise the 7 lakh appeals filed by excluded voters, given their immediate . He suggested that appeals from the Kolkata and Howrah municipal constituencies, where elections are due in , could be taken up on priority. He also argued that persons objecting to inclusions have remedies under the , and need not burden the SIR tribunals — which were created specifically to provide timely relief to excluded voters.
The Bench observed that depending on the break-up to be submitted by the ECI, it could issue directions to prioritise . Justice Bagchi noted that “exclusion was causing an immediate violation of a person’s rights.” The Court also asked the ECI to explain whether any additional tribunals are required and what steps are being taken to streamline disposals. , for the ECI, informed the Bench that the Commission had already met tribunal members twice and was scheduled to meet again to discuss speeding up the process.
TMC Raises Concerns Over Deleted Votes
, appearing for a member, drew the Court’s attention to an application highlighting 31 Assembly constituencies where the BJP’s winning margin over the TMC was less than the number of voters deleted from the rolls. He cited examples: in AC-145, the margin of loss was 401 votes while deletions stood at 8,785; in another constituency, the margin was 316 votes but deletions were higher. “Can the Court direct ?” asked Chief Justice Kant.
Justice Bagchi then posed a critical question: how many of the deleted persons had actually filed appeals against their exclusion? “So what we need to see is, let us say 100 people have been deleted, and the winning margin is 50, and the number of deleted persons filing appeals is 60 or 70, then the challenge to deletion becomes substantial. When the election result is subject to a decision by us, in a particular case, it may become very relevant,” the Judge observed.
Bandhopadhyay complained that the ECI had not furnished assembly-wise data and alleged that deletions were targeting a specific community. He cited a constituency in Murshidabad where a candidate lost by 15,000 votes but 27,000 voters had been deleted. The Bench assured that it would not confine its examination to those 31 constituencies but would look at the entire pending appeals process.
Court Directions and Next Steps
By its order, the directed the ECI to file an affidavit specifying: (i) the total number of pending appeals; (ii) a break-up of appeals filed by excluded persons versus those challenging inclusions; (iii) the number of appeals disposed of, along with the nature of relief sought; (iv) the number allowed and consequential steps taken to update electoral rolls. The ECI must also state whether additional tribunals are needed and explain the mechanism proposed to streamline disposals.
The Bench stressed the urgency of resolving these disputes ahead of any future elections. “We are with you on this point. Before the Parliament elections come, and much before that, everything should be decided,” Chief Justice Kant said. The Court also suggested that the ECI, tribunal judges, and the Chief Justice of the — who oversees the tribunal proceedings — work together to accelerate the process.
Broader Implications
The revelations in this case have significant implications for electoral democracy. The fact that 80% of appeals to the SIR tribunals seek the exclusion of voters — rather than inclusion — raises serious questions about the nature and purpose of the electoral roll revision exercise. Legal experts point out that the tribunals were conceived as a safeguard for disenfranchised voters, not as a forum for mass objections to inclusion. The Court’s emphasis on prioritising aligns with the under .
Moreover, the TMC’s allegations of targeted deletions in constituencies where margins were slim could, if substantiated, lead to challenges to election results under the , 1951. The judiciary’s willingness to examine whether can be ordered marks a robust stance on . The transparency deficit highlighted by the reliance on RTI applications — and the ECI’s failure to provide data — is equally troubling.
As the ECI prepares its affidavit, the legal community will watch closely to see how the pending 38 lakh appeals are categorised and whether the tribunals can finally deliver timely justice to the lakhs of voters who have been wrongfully excluded.
