Today, On 13th April, The Supreme Court observed that the Election Commission of India prepared a list of doubtful voters due to a logical discrepancy during the Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal. The Court noted that voters were left sandwiched between two constitutional authorities, raising serious concerns about fairness in the electoral process.
The Supreme Court observed that the Election Commission of India (ECI) prepared a list of doubtful voters due to a logical discrepancy only during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, sitting on a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, further remarked that voters in West Bengal have been placed “between different constitutional authorities.”
Justice Bagchi made these comments after the ECI argued that judicial officers who adjudicate notices issued by the poll body rejected 47% of the cases.
Justice Bagchi said,
“It’s not end justifying means but means justifying the end. This is not a fight between State and Election Commission. This is not a blame game. It is about voter being sandwiched between two constitutional authorities. Courts have intervened only to promote elections and not interdict it,”
However, Justice Bagchi added that election results cannot be disturbed unless a “enormous amount of voters excluded is established.“
The judge added,
“If 10 percent does not vote and winning margin is more than 10 percent then…if it’s less than 5 percent then we have to apply our mind. Earlier a candidate was given primacy before the appellate tribunal because a candidate cannot be denied the right to contest. Please don’t think the question is not in our mind that what about those who are excluded,”
The judge also pointed out differences between the SIR exercises in West Bengal and Bihar, especially regarding how the “logical discrepancy” list was prepared.
“We have permitted the constitutional authority to go into purity of electoral roll issue. Your original ECI notification on SIR did not touch 2002 list. But your logical discrepancy list rejection reasons are 2002 list etc. your notification touched people who relates to people in the 2002 list. 2002 list is the benchmark. See in your final list you did not delete the 2002 list members. When Bihar SIR was argued, submissions of ECI was unequivocal that 2002 list members need not give any document. Please see your written submissions in Bihar case. You had said 2002 electorate need not give documents..”
When ECI counsel Senior Advocate DS Naidu said that individuals must show they are the same persons as those in the 2002 list, Justice Bagchi said, “Now you are improvising the submissions which you made earlier.”
Justice Bagchi also noted that judicial officers may have made some errors during the adjudication process.
He said,
“If you go through 1000 documents a day, if accuracy is 70 percent then the activity should be rated as excellent. So margin of error will be there and we need a robust appellate forum,”
Emphasising that the right to vote must remain uninterrupted and that the Court should not be swayed by the “dust and fury” of upcoming elections, Justice Bagchi said,
“Right to vote in a country you were born is not Constitutional only but sentimental. It is like you are a part of democracy and help in electing a government.”
When Naidu argued that West Bengal was not an exception when compared with other states that underwent SIR, Justice Bagchi said there was no “logical discrepancy” list in Bihar.
Naidu responded that Bihar also saw rejections, but without an appeal mechanism.
Justice Bagchi said,
“For the appellate tribunal this is not competition between conflating or deflating electoral rolls. They have to hear it on the principles of inclusion.”
The Court was hearing a case concerning the functioning of appellate tribunals in West Bengal. Counsel for a petitioner submitted that the ECI was not even placing matters before the appellate tribunal chaired by Chief Justice (retd.) TS Sivanganam.
The counsel said,
“Appeals are not being taken up. Let freezing date be extended,”
CJI Kant asked the petitioner to raise these submissions before the appellate tribunal itself. When the counsel sought to know whether the appeals would be decided within a fixed time frame, the Court was not satisfied.
CJI Kant said,
“So you want us to put the former chief Justices and judges.. under pressure,”
Justice Bagchi similarly said,
“Calcutta HC Chief has informed manner and mode of appeals have been formulated. It has started hearing from today. We cannot say hearing x appeals from today.”
The Court then declined to entertain the plea relating to the appeals listed before the appellate tribunal, saying the petitioner would need to make the case before the tribunal.
When the petitioner’s counsel said that the Chief Justice had also remarked that judicial officers had not recorded reasons for rejection, CJI Kant said,
“We cannot doubt the judicial officers.”
Earlier, On February 24, the court permitted the deployment of West Bengal civil judges alongside 250 district judges, and authorized the requisition of judicial officers from Jharkhand and Odisha, to address roughly 8 million claims and objections from those facing deletion during the SIR.
Click Here to Read More Reports on West Bengal’s SIR
Case Title : QUARAISHA YEASMIN AND ORS. v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 462/2026