West Bengal SIR| Supreme Court Directs Uniform Procedure For Appellate Tribunals, Asks High Court To Constitute Committee Of Three Former Senior Judges

The Supreme Court has directed the constitution of a committee comprising three former senior most judges to standardize the functioning of 19 Appellate Tribunals overseeing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in West Bengal.

The Court said that these tribunals must ensure natural justice by providing clear reasons for exclusions and maintaining transparency to prevent further constitutional litigation.

On the last date of hearing, the Court expressed grave "disappointment" and "extreme concern" over a chilling security lapse in Malda district, where seven judicial officers were gheraoed and later attacked by a mob. It characterised the incident as a "brazen attempt" to browbeat the judiciary and a direct challenge to the authority of the apex court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered, "Thus we request the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a team of three former senior-most chief justices or judges who shall prescribe the procedure which will be mandatorily followed by all 19 tribunals uniformly. Let the committee prescribe the procedure by tomorrow so that adjudication of appeals can be expedited..."

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Diwan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, appearing for the Petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appearing for the ECI.

The Court said that the Chief Justice of the High Court had sent a letter where he stated that as on April 6, 12:04 p.m., 59.15 lakhs objections were decided by the judicial officers against a total pendency of 60.6 lakhs.

The Court also highlighted that in Malda, where judicial officers faced significant hardships, including the recent gherao, all 8 lakh objections have been cleared. The CJI pointed out that the Election Commission’s dashboard has not been updated in real-time. Senior Advocate Naidu assured the court that approximately 51,000 updates across Phases 1 and 2 would be completed shortly.

Justice Bagchi said, "There have been certain cases where there have been documents which could not be uploaded online. then with no receipt... this issue will again be agitated...Next, before a constitutional court and have the matter remanded. Whoever makes an appeal has raised a grievance that they don't know the reason for. You can tell the tribunal to reveal the records."

Chief Justice Kant said, "Suppose a matriculation certificate is given and if it is not seen, then the Appellate tribunal can look into it."

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan highlighted the massive scale of the situation, noting that of the 60 lakh cases, the exclusion rate stands at a high 55%. He pointed out that 7 lakh appeals have already been filed, yet they are being handled by only 19 appellate tribunals, resulting in reports of extremely long queues for filing.

Justice Bagchi remarked that the independent judicial adjudication, which served as an additional layer for the West Bengal SIR process to address logical discrepancies, had been successfully completed thanks to extraordinary efforts.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal asked whether the court could establish a process for passing interim orders in cases that were prima facie incorrect, allowing for immediate inclusion. The Court, however, declined to intervene directly, stating that such matters would be left to the discretion of the appellate tribunals.

Justice Bagchi emphasized that while the tribunals will continue their hearings, the process should not be rushed, even though a definitive timeline for freezing the list is necessary. He noted that while judicial officers have completed the first layer of adjudication, the appellate process could naturally extend to 60 days.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy pointed out a poignant example of the exclusion rate, noting that even the grandchildren of Nandalal Bose—the renowned artist who illustrated the Constitution of India—have been excluded from the list in Shantiniketan. In this regard, the Court asked the ECI to assist the Applicant for effective adjudication.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued that any names cleared by the appellate tribunals must be included in a supplementary list. In response, the CJI stated that the former Chief Justices and judges leading these tribunals should be permitted to evolve their own procedures for handling the cases.

Senior Advocate Naidu reported that a speech had been delivered inciting people against federal officials, allegedly stating, "CRPF officials are coming from UP to beat you... be prepared."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court of a harrowing interview given by a judicial officer to a journalist. In the clip, the officer stated that her life was in danger and made a plea that if anything were to happen to her, her children should be taken care of.

The bench then paused to watch the video clips provided by the Election Commission, which documented these incidents and the volatile atmosphere surrounding the adjudication centres.

The Court reiterated that such "calculated and motivated" attempts to demoralize judicial officers would not be tolerated and would be treated as a direct challenge to the authority of the judiciary.

The Court directed the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to constitute a committee of the three most senior former judges to establish a uniform mandatory procedure for all 19 appellate tribunals by tomorrow. The Court also clarified that the tribunals must have full access to judicial records to review the reasons behind exclusions, effectively acting as "extended hands" of the judiciary to ensure a fair electoral roll.

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for a further date.

Background

The 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.

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]