Ex-Calcutta HC judge's name added to Bengal SIR supplementary list after earlier exclusion
Former HC judge Sahidullah Munshi’s name added back to Bengal electoral roll after SIR exclusion raised concerns over the verification process.
Days after former Calcutta High Court judge Sahidullah Munshi flagged that his and his family members’ names have not been included in the supplementary list published by the Election Commission (EC) following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal, the names of the former judge and his family members were included in the electoral roll.
According to a report in Live Law, Justice (retd) Munshi and his family's names have been added to the electoral roll as an amendment to the initial list published on February 28, 2026, from which their names were removed earlier.
Background and tribunal direction
Justice (retd) Munshi, who was elevated to the bench of the Calcutta High Court in 2013, served for about seven years before demitting office in September 2020. He is presently serving as the Chairman of the Board of Auqaf in West Bengal.
Also Read: Bengal SIR: Former Calcutta HC judge Sahidullah Munshi marked ‘not found’ in electoral roll
Earlier, the Supreme Court had stepped in to direct the constitution of Appellate Tribunals comprising former Chief Justices and judges of High Courts to hear appeals arising out of exclusions during the SIR exercise in West Bengal. The direction came amid concerns over the absence of an independent appellate mechanism.
Names missing in draft rolls
According to a report in Bar & Bench, the names of Justice (retd) Munshi and his family members were also missing from the first draft of the electoral rolls.
Also Read: SIR controversy dominates Bengal's election mood
“What happened with me was after the first SIR notification was out, we submitted all our documents. Me, my wife and my elder son and my son, we submitted our documents to the Booth Level Officer. Our name did not come in the draft SIR. So automatically, you know, we were worried. But then we were told that we can move for verification etc.” Munshi told Bar & Bench.
Verification process and outcome
He went on to explain that he was later asked to visit the Election Commission’s office at Entally in Kolkata, where a fresh round of verification was carried out by officials. According to him, assurances were given that the issue would likely be resolved following this exercise.
Also Read: Bengal SIR row: Mamata alleges BJP using voter deletions to divide state
However, when the supplementary list was published, his name appeared to have been treated differently from that of his family members.
“What happened in the supplementary list was automatically the names did not figure and my wife and my son was marked as under adjudication, whereas my name is shown in the supplementary list as not found,” added the former judge.
Lack of clarity and remedies questioned
He further stated that no reasons were communicated for the deletion of his name and indicated uncertainty regarding the grounds on which an appeal could be pursued before the appellate tribunal. Justice (retd) Munshi also pointed out that no receipts were issued for the documents he had submitted.
Also Read: Two more deaths linked to Bengal’s controversial SIR; Trinamool reacts
Questioning the available remedy, the former judge said, “Apart from the natural justice violation ground, there are no other grounds on which I can move the appellate tribunal and if the appellate tribunal does not find it fit, then I have to move the High Court under Article 226.”
He also drew attention to what he described as inconsistencies in the outcome, noting that while his own name was marked “not found”, his wife and son continued to be shown as “under adjudication” despite all documents having been submitted together.
SIR exercise and court scrutiny
The SIR exercise undertaken by the Election Commission in West Bengal involves fresh verification of electoral rolls, including enumeration, publication of draft rolls, and a claims and objections stage.
The exercise has also come under scrutiny before the Supreme Court, which has directed that adequate opportunity be provided for verification and filing of objections. At present, the process is being carried out by judicial officers drawn from three States, following an order dated February 20 in which the Court took note of the lack of cooperation between the State government and the Election Commission and directed such an arrangement.