SC refuses interim inclusion of unverified voters in West Bengal SIR case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 7) declined to permit the interim inclusion of voters who failed to get verified by judicial officers during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, while their appeals remain pending.

The development took place during the hearing of a batch of pleas challenging the SIR process in West Bengal ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections. The hearing was being conducted by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.

Court’s view on interim inclusion

“Persons aggrieved are entitled to file an appeal. Appellate authorities will formulate a fair procedure and natural justice is followed and the final order is passed. That may take a month, that may even take 60 days. We cannot on that contemplation allow some people because they were earlier mapped”, said Justice Bagchi, as quoted by Live Law.

Also Read: SC refuses to set deadline even as Bengal flags 20L exclusions after SIR review

The decision comes a day after the Supreme Court refused to set a deadline on the appellate tribunals to resolve the appeals, even after the West Bengal government informed it that approximately 55 per cent of the 60 lakh individuals whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls in poll-bound West Bengal remain excluded.

Verification process and tribunal setup

On February 20, the Court ordered the deployment of judicial officers to decide claims and objections concerning voter status, recording what it described as a “trust deficit” between the two constitutional authorities involved in the process. The move was intended to introduce an initial level of adjudication at the verification stage itself.

Also Read: 'Avenge SIR deletion by voting': Mamata issues clarion call at Murshidabad poll rally

By February 28, the final voter list for West Bengal had been published, reflecting the deletion of approximately 63 lakh names. At the same time, more than 60 lakh cases were stated to be pending adjudication.

In view of the absence of a dedicated appellate structure, the Court, on March 10, directed the constitution of appellate tribunals comprising former Chief Justices and judges of High Courts to hear challenges to the determinations made by judicial officers.

State data and scale of exclusions

Appearing for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, senior advocate Shyam Divan placed figures before the Court indicating that data was available for 44 lakh of the 60 lakh cases. According to him, the inclusion rate stood at roughly 55 per cent, covering about 24 lakh individuals, while exclusions accounted for the remaining 45%, or around 20 lakh persons.

Also Read: Congress candidate's name restored to voter rolls in Bengal; can nominate self now

He submitted that the rejection rate remained significant despite the safeguards introduced through judicial scrutiny, adding that many of those excluded had figured in electoral rolls as far back as 2002.

Appeals timeline and pending cases

Divan further stated that out of the 20 lakh deletions, nearly 7 lakh electors had already approached appellate forums, with several lakh more in the process of filing appeals.

He pointed out that although tribunals had been notified on March 10, they were yet to become fully functional, with only a limited number of cases taken up so far. He suggested that all appeals be disposed of by April 15, 2026, to enable publication of a supplementary roll by April 18, shortly before polling.

Request for relief, court response

He also urged that voters with pending appeals beyond that date be provisionally included to avoid disenfranchisement. Supporting this, senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that tribunals should be empowered to grant interim relief where a prima facie case exists, citing possession of a passport as an example.

Also Read: SC slams West Bengal over gherao of judicial officers in Malda; Mamata blames BJP

The Court, however, was not inclined to accept this approach. Justice Bagchi observed that interim relief would not be appropriate at this stage, noting that verification had already been undertaken by judicial officers and the process required finality. He indicated that while those cleared during verification could be included in supplementary rolls, appellate proceedings would continue independently and should not be hurried.

‘Tribunals to continue hearing’

“ECI was flagging very peculiar discrepancies. We needed to have a first instance adjudication, rather verification. That verification is done. Now the last day of nomination, if the verification of all the logical discrepancy is done, we will allow those who have been given the nod to be incorporated in the supplementary list. But the tribunals will go on hearing (appeals). That we do not rush these exercises”, he said.

Responding to concerns that the tribunal process might be rendered ineffective without consequential updates to the rolls, Divan sought clarity. The Court declined to issue directions on that aspect, with the CJI stating, “We are completely silent on this issue. Let the tribunals evolve their own procedure.”