West Bengal SIR| Apex Court Sets Up 19 Appellate Tribunals For Voter Revision As 47.4 Lakh Cases Cleared; Orders Access To "Recorded Reasons"

The Supreme Court announced the constitution of 19 Appellate Tribunals to handle the mounting appeals arising from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls in West Bengal.

Citing a status report from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, the Court noted that judicial officers have achieved an unprecedented disposal rate, clearing 47.40 lakh objections out of a total 65 lakh as of March 31.

To accommodate this, a dedicated judicial hub featuring 21 chambers has been established at the Dr Shyama Prasad Mookherjee Institute, with the Court mandating that these tribunals be granted full access to the specific "recorded reasons" for every voter exclusion to ensure a fair and transparent appellate process.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered, "The Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has identified former Chief Justices for the constitution of appellate tribunals so that parties may appeal decisions after adjudication. Following the March 10 order, two communications have been received from the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice. We have been updated regarding the disposal of objections by judicial officers, as well as the proposal to publish the first supplementary list. There is another communication dated March 31, whereby we are informed that as of March 31, 36 lakh objections have been decided out of 65 lakhs. Total disposal has crossed 47.40 lakhs...The ECI has notified the constitution of 19 appellate tribunals. A team from the State and the ECI inspected premises for the appellate tribunals to function. The Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee National Institute of Water and Sanitation was shortlisted, as the building was found "ready to move" and can accommodate 21 chambers. Ministry-level permissions were obtained for eight weeks."

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Diwan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Kalyan Banerjee appearing for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appearing for the ECI.

The Court also ordered, "Training of all the judges shall be completed today so that they are updated on all appeals filed online and offline. The ECI will either seek an extension or another venue shall be selected...Regarding the non-availability of reasons as pointed out by the Chief Justice of the High Court, Mr. Naidu informs us that the appellate tribunal will have access to the reasons recorded therein for the exclusion or inclusion of names. Thus, we request the appellate tribunals to have full access to the reports and reasons assigned by judicial officers while adjudicating such cases...Appellate tribunals can form their own procedures by following the principles of natural justice. We request the tribunals not to take fresh documents without verifying the genuineness of such documents."

Chief Justice Kant said, "We got a letter from the Chief Justice of the High Court yesterday...we are quite happy and optimistic about the facts and figures...So is it correct that out of 60,675, around 47 Thousands have been disposed of...and with regard to the remaining 47 lakh something disposed of by yesterday...1.75 to 2 lakh objections being dealt with every day...by 7th of April, we are informed all objections likely to be decided."

The Bench took a firm stand against attempts to challenge the "orientation" of the newly formed Appellate Tribunal, which is composed of former judges. When Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee argued that such a high-level quasi-judicial body did not require training, the CJI dismissed the claim as a "frivolous allegation."

The Court clarified that these sessions are not intended to influence the merits of any case but are purely technical orientations to help judges navigate specialized software they have never used before.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said this by stating there is absolutely no doubt regarding the impartiality or lack of bias in these judges, regardless of the administrative briefing.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the portal includes a specific column designed for recording the "reasons" for every voter's inclusion or exclusion. The Court directed that these reasons must be meticulously recorded so that any person filing an appeal has a clear basis for their challenge.

Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, representing the ECI, assured the bench that the entire digital record would be made available to the Appellate Body to ensure a fair and data-driven review of every rejection.

The Bench offered a broader perspective on the constitutional right to vote, balancing the urgency of the upcoming election with long-term legal protections. Justice Bagchi noted that while the current priority is finalizing the list for this specific election, a person’s right to vote is not "deprived forever" if they are excluded now.

"On the last occasion, we made some observations regarding the architecture of the software. The architecture of software provides for a field where remarks and reasons are given by the officers concerned while deciding whether the logical discrepancy was justified, and therefore, the deletion was warranted, or it was not justified and therefore the inclusion is directed. In such cases, whenever an appeal is filed by an aggrieved person, be it a representative of ECI who feels that the inclusion is unjustified or be it the person who has been excluded, the reason shall be supplied to the person concerned...", Justice Bagchi said.

He explained that if a tribunal headed by a former Chief Justice later finds an exclusion was erroneous, the individual will be reinstated in the permanent voting list. This reinforces the principle that while the immediate electoral roll is vital, the judicial process remains a permanent safeguard for a citizen’s fundamental rights.

The Chief Justice reminded the petitioners that the statutory right to object still exists and that the Court is not "closing the case," but will instead monitor the situation as it develops.

Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu defended the submissions by citing Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, which allows for voter inclusions until the very last day of nominations, emphasizing that no one can thwart the rights of those who have recently turned 18 or are otherwise eligible.

 Justice Joymalya Bagchi distinguished between the ongoing general "amendment of the electoral roll" and the specific "electoral roll that goes for polls." Justice Bagchi noted that the eligibility to vote in the current election is strictly tied to the qualifying date set by the ECI. Therefore, even if a person is successfully included in the rolls through these new Form 6 submissions, such an inclusion will not automatically grant them the right to vote in this specific election if they missed the cut-off. 

Accordingly, the matter is now listed on 6th April at 4 pm.

Background

Previously, the Court 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.

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.

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. 

The 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: 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]