The Election Commission has now supplied the figure the Supreme Court had been asking for. Of the appeals filed before the Appellate Tribunals against the revised West Bengal rolls, the majority, about 22 lakh, were filed by voters whose names had been deleted; about 16 lakh challenge the inclusion of names. That break-up matters, because the petitioners had earlier told the Court, on the basis of RTI data, that most appeals were inclusion challenges. The Commission has also proposed more Tribunals, and disputed the claim that the appeals process has changed any result.
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India has filed a fresh affidavit before the Supreme Court in the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, giving the break-up, sought earlier by the Court, of appeals filed before the Appellate Tribunals against the revised electoral rolls, and stating that the majority were filed by voters whose names had been excluded [Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Others].
According to the affidavit, of the 38,31,429 appeals filed before the Tribunals, 22,21,118 were filed by voters whose names were deleted or excluded, while 16,10,311 were filed challenging the inclusion of names in the rolls.
The break-up the Court had sought
The exclusion-versus-inclusion break-up had been a specific point of inquiry. On an earlier date, the petitioners had told the Court, relying on information obtained under the Right to Information Act, that more than 80% of the appeals were filed by third parties challenging the inclusion of names, with appeals by excluded voters forming only about 20%. The Commission’s latest figures indicate the reverse proportion, with appeals by excluded voters, at over 22 lakh, forming the larger share of about 58%, and inclusion challenges, at over 16 lakh, about 42%.
The affidavit records that 1,26,194 appeals have been decided so far, while 37,05,235 remain pending before the Tribunals. It was filed in response to an application by Trinamool Congress leader Derek O’Brien challenging the Commission’s procedural actions during the SIR; a previous affidavit, filed in a connected petition, had stated that over 97% of the appeals before the Tribunals were pending disposal.
More Tribunals proposed
To address the pendency, the Commission has proposed increasing the number of Appellate Tribunals to correspond with the number of parliamentary constituencies in the State, so that the appeals can be disposed of expeditiously. It has stated that the software it developed for the purpose is “location-agnostic”, enabling the judicial officers presiding over the Tribunals to decide appeals from any place of convenience, and that this facilitates speedy disposal without requiring the officers to remain physically present at a Tribunal location.
Claim that outcomes were altered, contested
The Commission has also contested the claim that the adjudication exercise by the Tribunals altered any electoral outcome. In the affidavit, it cited the Dinhata, Khargram, Bally and Howrah Uttar Assembly constituencies as examples to submit that the number of adjudicated deletions was lower than the margin of defeat, so that the deletions could not have affected the result.
These are the submissions of the Election Commission on affidavit. The petitioners’ contentions, and the accuracy of the competing figures, are matters for the Court, which is monitoring the functioning of the Tribunals.
Why it matters
The exclusion-versus-inclusion break-up is central to how the appeals should be prioritised, a question the Court had flagged. An appeal against an exclusion is brought by a person seeking restoration to the rolls, and an appeal against an inclusion seeks another person’s removal; the Court had earlier observed, through Justice Bagchi, that exclusion causes an immediate violation of a person’s rights, which may warrant taking such appeals up first. On the Commission’s figures, the larger body of appeals, over 22 lakh, is precisely of the exclusion kind, which bears directly on that prioritisation debate.
The gap between the two sets of figures, the petitioners’ RTI-based estimate that most appeals were inclusion challenges, and the Commission’s affidavit that the majority are exclusion appeals, is itself significant, and the Court will have to reconcile them. The number that is not in dispute is the pendency: with over 37 lakh appeals still to be decided and elections on the horizon, the pace at which the Tribunals work remains the practical crux, which is why the Commission’s proposal to multiply the Tribunals and its reliance on remote, software-enabled disposal are before the Court.
The Commission’s contention that adjudicated deletions did not exceed the margin of defeat in the constituencies it cited goes to a distinct and contested question, whether the revision process has affected electoral outcomes, on which the petitioners take a different view. Nothing has been decided; the affidavit places the Commission’s data and its proposals on the record, and the Court will consider them, along with the petitioners’ response, as it continues to monitor the revision and the disposal of appeals.
Case Title: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Others [W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 and connected cases]
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Affidavit: Filed by the Election Commission of India in the application of Derek O’Brien
Status: ECI affidavit records 22,21,118 exclusion appeals and 16,10,311 inclusion appeals of 38,31,429 filed; 1,26,194 decided and 37,05,235 pending. Commission proposes more Tribunals and contests the claim that adjudication altered electoral outcomes. Matter being monitored; nothing finally decided.