The Supreme Court has determined that individuals whose names have been reinstated by Appellate Tribunals during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal will be permitted to participate in the forthcoming Assembly elections, contingent upon their appeals being resolved by designated cut-off dates.
A panel consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi instructed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to update the electoral rolls to reflect these modifications. The cut-off dates are established as April 21, in relation to the first phase of voting on April 23, and April 27, for the second phase on April 29.
In an order issued on April 13 and released to the public on Thursday, the bench exercised its authority under Article 142. They stated, “If the Appellate Tribunals can conclude the appeals by 21.04.2026 or 27.04.2026, those appellate decisions should be implemented by issuing a supplementary revised electoral roll, allowing all necessary implications regarding voting rights to take effect.”
However, the court clarified that the mere existence of pending appeals from individuals who have been excluded does not grant them the right to vote. The bench expressed concern that allowing such a situation could lead to objections from others, potentially denying voting rights to those whose names are included in the revised rolls but against whom there are appeals.
The court emphasized, “Permitting such circumstances would recreate the previous state of affairs prior to the delegation of the verification process to Judicial Officers. This is unacceptable, especially considering that Judicial Officers from West Bengal, assisted by their counterparts from Jharkhand and Odisha, have accomplished a demanding task in a notably brief period.”
On April 13, the Supreme Court addressed a petition from individuals whose cases were pending before the Appellate Tribunals, requesting the inclusion of their names on the electoral rolls while awaiting final decisions.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Kant and Justice Bagchi indicated the possibility of directing the ECI to compile a supplementary voter list following the resolution of appeals challenging the decisions made by judicial officers regarding names flagged for logistical discrepancies.
Justice Bagchi raised concerns about the exclusion of voters in relation to winning margins, stating that the right to vote is a fundamental expression of national identity and patriotism within a democratic system. He noted, “If the margin is just 2 percent and 15 percent of eligible voters are unable to cast their ballots, we may not be expressing a definitive opinion, but we must certainly consider this.”
In response to the petitioners’ request for their names to be added to the electoral rolls pending appeal resolution, the court’s order highlighted that such requests contradict the framework established by the court, as the judicial verification process determined that the petitioners were not valid.
The ruling pointed out that this verification undermines the presumption of accuracy associated with their prior inclusion, particularly given that the task was conducted by an impartial group of active Judicial Officers.
The court suggested that the petitioners could approach the Appellate Tribunal for a possible expedited hearing of their cases, clarifying that no opinion on the merits of the case had been offered.
Regarding the status of the Appellate Tribunals, the Supreme Court acknowledged that all necessary training for the Tribunal members has been completed and confirmed that they are currently operational.
The order also mentioned that over 3.4 million appeals have been filed with the Tribunals, addressing both wrongful exclusions and objections from those contesting the inclusion of various individuals in the revised electoral rolls.
It was noted that all appeals must be adjudicated in line with the Standard Operating Procedures established by the Committee and the guidelines provided in the court’s order dated April 1, 2026.
In its April 1 ruling, the Supreme Court instructed the Tribunals to thoroughly review all records, including the justifications provided by Judicial Officers during their evaluations of objections, before making decisions on the pending appeals, and to communicate these reasons to the relevant parties.
The court also stated that the Appellate Tribunals have the discretion to develop their own procedures in accordance with natural justice principles and are encouraged to handle appeals after ensuring that all parties receive a fair opportunity to present their case.
