Breaking: Supreme Court Orders High Court To Form Appellate Bench To Adjudicate Rejections In West Bengal Voter Revision; Directs ECI To End Technical Hurdles And Fund Judicial Costs

The Supreme Court today ordered the creation of a special judicial bench to hear appeals from people whose names were rejected by the Judicial Officers after adjudication from West Bengal's voter list.

The Court made it clear that only judges can decide these appeals. To make this happen, the Election Commission of India (ECI) must pay for all the costs, including the salaries of the judges and the 500 judicial officers currently working overtime to fix the lists.

The order came after the Court learned that judicial officers have already cleared over 10 lakh cases, working through weekends and holidays to finish the job. The Court also warned the ECI to stop "technical disruptions" like login problems that were slowing down the work.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered in the main matter, "During the course of the hearing, senior counsel for the petitioners raised two important issues: first, the mechanism of appeal for those whose claims for inclusion in the voter list have been rejected; and second, the publication of the supplementary list, given that over 10,16,000 objections have already been disposed of...Regarding the first issue, we clarify that the orders passed by judicial officers will not be subject to appeal before any executive or administrative officer. Instead, the Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta may request a former Chief Justice and two or three former judges of the High Court (preferably from Calcutta or neighboring states) to be notified as the Appellate Tribunal. The Election Commission of India, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, shall issue a notification appointing these individuals as the Appellate Tribunal."

Senior Advocates Menaka Guruswamy, Gopal Sankarnarayanan and Kalyan Banerjee appeared for the Petitioners.

The Court clarified that rejections made by judicial officers during the SIR cannot be challenged before any executive or administrative body. Instead, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court is authorized to appoint a specialized bench consisting of a former Chief Justice and two or three former (or sitting) High Court judges. The Election Commission of India (ECI) must officially notify this Appellate Tribunal and bear all associated costs, including honorariums for the judges and the 200 judicial officers requisitioned from Odisha and Jharkhand.

The Court ordered, "In continuation of the order dated February 24, 2026, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has informed us that 10,16,000 objections have been disposed of as of March 9. He has further informed us that 500-plus judicial officers from West Bengal, supplemented by 200 officers from Odisha and Jharkhand, have been deployed and are working day and night...The communication states that as of March 8, 2026, 709 login IDs have been created for the smooth mobilization and redeployment of judicial officers in some of the sensitive districts. However, the judicial officers, who are under the Chief Justice, have experienced an urgent difficulty which seems to have been created due to a mistake at the level of the Election Commission of India (ECI)...The same has been brought to the notice of the counsel representing the Election Commission of India, who assures that it shall be rectified immediately, without any delay. We strongly recommend that the Election Commission of India provide full logistical support to the High Court at Calcutta and all judicial officers in the completion of the responsibilities we have assigned to them. We expect prompt creation and management of login IDs so that there is optimum utilization of the services of the judicial officers."

A fresh plea was also filed by some persons whose names have been deleted from the electoral rolls by the Election Commission during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in West Bengal.

The Court also ordered, "The report informs us that repeated video conferences are being conducted with District Judges to sensitize them about the importance of this exercise. Necessary directions have also been issued to judicial officers; leaves have been canceled, and officers are working on holidays, including Sundays. What more sacrifice could we expect from our officers? They are working with such dedication, yet the public often fails to notice this when criticizing the judiciary. They are truly burning the candle at both ends...It is further informed that training sessions have been organized through video conferencing on several occasions, and officers from Odisha and Jharkhand have also been provided training through these sessions. The State Government is directed to provide security, convenience, and accommodation to every deployed officer throughout this exercise. As an abundant precaution, we direct the State Government to ensure all necessary facilities are provided for their smooth functioning."

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy informed the bench that while judicial officers have already processed nearly 10 lakh cases, a massive backlog of approximately 50 to 57 lakh claims remains pending. Guruswamy highlighted that 47 lakh of these cases involve "mapped" voters—individuals who have historically been recognized as genuine electors but are now flagged for logical discrepancies. She argued that these citizens are facing exclusion without being served formal orders, which effectively blocks their access to statutory appeals.

Chief Justice Surya Kant sternly remarked, "How do the petitioners dare to file that application? We are going to take them to task. You are talking about the petition mentioned yesterday?"

Guruswamy said, "No, my Lord. Yesterday, there was an application in the main case where your Lordships passed the order. That shows that you people are now..."

CJI Surya Kant remarked, "We will not accept anyone daring to question the judicial officers."

Guruswamy replied, "We are not questioning them, my Lord."

CJI Surya Kant said, "As Chief Justice of India, it is my duty to protect the judiciary. I will not allow anyone to undermine it. I know exactly what has happened."

Guruswamy said, "We are not questioning them, my Lord."

CJI Surya Kant sternly said, "No, there are questions being raised. You may not know, Madam, and I do not think anyone currently in this room has filed this particular petition, so I am not sharing details. I will not share in open court what has happened, but I am issuing a stern warning to everyone—this side and that side both. Judicial officers should not be questioned. I am not going to tolerate it; it is not acceptable."

The Bench suggested that it could constitute a specialized bench of former judges specifically to adjudicate these appeals arising out of these rejections. 

The bench emphasized that the primary focus must remain on allowing the judicial officers to work without interference or obstruction. Justice Bagchi noted that the court's intervention in this "humongous exercise" was specifically designed to protect the process, not to penalize the 48 lakh "mapped" voters whose status is currently under scrutiny.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan said, "Out of 10 lakhs decided, 4 lakh was rejected. If they all go to High Court then it will be overburdened."

Chief Justice said, "We can form a two-judge bench of former judges to look at appeal also."

Justice Bagchi remarked, "Anyone included is included anyone excluded is excluded. This is as of now subject to future decision. So let the supplementary list be published."

The Court issued a series of mandatory directions to ensure the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) remains uninterrupted and transparent. The ECI has been barred from introducing any new mandatory steps without the prior approval of the High Court Chief Justice.

Furthermore, the Court ordered that technical disruptions on the voter portal be eliminated and new login credentials be generated promptly. To maintain the purity of the process, the Bench reaffirmed that no administrative body can hear appeals against a judicial officer's decision; instead, an independent appellate mechanism will be established.

This new appellate body will consist of a bench of either former or sitting High Court judges, to be constituted at the discretion of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. The ECI is tasked with publishing a formal notification for this body and will bear all costs, including the honorarium for the judges and the 200 judicial officers requisitioned from neighboring states.

Finally, the Court granted both the State and the petitioners the liberty to approach the High Court for the publication of supplementary lists to ensure that those successfully included in the rolls can exercise their right to vote.

The Bench ordered, "The Honorable Chief Justice has further informed us that all orders and updates are disseminated in real-time via the High Court’s official Telegram group and email across all districts simultaneously. Adverting to the issues flagged by the Honorable Chief Justice, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: 1. The Election Commission of India will ensure that no mandatory tags or procedures which might cause disruption in the process are introduced unless approved by the Honorable Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta...2. The portal's technical issues causing disruptions prior to March 7, 2026, will be effectively addressed to ensure no further disruptions take place...3. New login IDs will be created promptly, as and when required by the judicial officers, without wasting any time."

Later, Guruswamy withdrew the petition, namely, Bilkis Tarafdar and Ors. v. Election Commission of India.

Background

On February 24, the Court had modified its earlier order and asked the Calcutta High Court to draw officers in the rank of civil judges (civil and junior division having experience not less than 3 years) for the verification of approximately 80 lacs cases of 'logical discrepancies'. The report from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court highlighted the "enormity of the exercise," noting that 250 judges currently assigned to verify 80 lakh logical discrepancies would take 80 days to finish at their current pace. To accelerate this, the bench authorized the Calcutta High Court to draft civil judges with at least three years of experience and, if necessary, requisition serving or retired officers from Odisha and Jharkhand, with the ECI bearing all travel and lodging costs.

On February 20, 2026, the Court had asked the Calcutta High Court to appoint judicial officers to oversee the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Bench directed that District and Additional District Judges be deputed to adjudicate the claims and objections, effectively shifting the verification process into a quasi-judicial framework.

Previously, the Court issued a show-cause notice to the Director General of Police (DGP) in response to reports submitted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding widespread threats and violence directed at officials performing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duties. The Court has also passed directions in order to streamline the ongoing process of SIR.

On February 9, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan raised concerns about the potential consequences of this system, arguing that the large-scale purging of voter names should not be allowed to proceed under such conditions. In response, the Court said that the micro-observers as a team intended to assist the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and their assistants (AEROs). Senior Advocate Naidu for ECI explained that these observers serve an advisory role, providing guidance on which voter entries are acceptable. He further noted that these individuals had already completed a necessary ten-day training period. Chief Justice said that if the state-proposed Group B officers joined the process immediately, they could provide their own expert opinions, which would ultimately improve the quality and accuracy of the decisions made by the EROs.

On January 19, the Court issued directions regarding the 1.25 crores voters in West Bengal falling in the category of 'Logistical Discrepancies'. The Court has directed the Election Commission of India to hear the objections/discrepancies to these voters and to make smooth arrangements for such objections.

Previously, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee appeared in person and submitted to the Court that the Election Commission is targeting the State on the eve of elections and that the SIR process is only for deletion and not for exclusion. She questioned the extreme urgency of the three-month timeline, noting that the pressure led to over 100 deaths, including those of Booth Level Officers, and accused the ECI of operating via informal instructions through WhatsApp.

It was also submitted that these actions lead to large-scale disenfranchisement and alleged serious irregularities in how the ECI classifies individuals under the ‘Logical Discrepancy’ category. She contended that the ECI fails to upload these lists online, which deprives citizens of transparency and the chance to respond.

The Court issued directions regarding the 1.25 crores voters in West Bengal falling in the category of 'Logistical Discrepancies'. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to hear the objections/discrepancies to these voters and to make smooth arrangements for such objections. T

he Court noted that there were about 1.25 crores notices which have been issued for the purpose of the verification of documents, out of them, one category is described as 'logical discrepancy'. These notices were categorised into three headings, i.e. 1. Mapped, linked with the previous SIR of 2002; 2. Unmapped, voters who are not linked with the SIR of 2002; and 3. Logical Discrepancy, which comprises the maximum voters of 1.36 crores.

The Supreme Court had sought a response from the Election Commission on fresh interim pleas of Trinamool Congress MPs alleging arbitrariness and procedural irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

Previously, the Supreme Court had sought a response from the Election Commission on fresh interim pleas of Trinamool Congress MPs alleging arbitrariness and procedural irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

Derek O'Brien, in his plea, alleged arbitrariness and procedural irregularities in the SIR of electoral rolls in the state. The application said that since the inception of the SIR process in the state, the EC has issued instructions to officers at the ground level through "informal and extra-statutory channels", such as WhatsApp messages and oral directions conveyed during video conferences, instead of issuing formal written instructions. It said that on November 30 last year, the poll panel granted only a limited extension of time in relation to the revision schedule and fixed January 15, 2026, as the last date for submission of claims and objections. The application has sought a direction from the EC to extend the deadline for submitting claims and objections.

The Court had also sought separate responses of the Election Commission (EC) on pleas filed by DMK, CPI(M), West Bengal Congress and Trinamool Congress leaders challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, respectively.

Cause Title: Bilkis Tarafdar and Ors. v. Election Commission of India [W.P.(C) No. 304 of 2026], Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India [W.P.(C) No. 129 of 2026], Mostari Banu v. The Election Commission of India [W.P. (C) No. 1089/ 2025] and Derek O' Brien v. The Election Commission of India [W.P. (C) No. 737/ 2025]