The Court said pending appeals alone cannot justify restoration of names in the rolls. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the appellate process may take time. However, that delay cannot justify interim inclusion merely because those persons appeared in the 2002 electoral roll.
West Bengal voter rolls under Supreme Court scrutiny
“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,” he said.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the batch of pleas. The petitions challenge the Special Intensive Revision of the West Bengal electoral roll ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections.
Earlier, on February 20, the Court directed the deployment of judicial officers. They were to decide claims and objections on inclusion and exclusion of voters. The Court noted a “trust deficit” between the two constitutional authorities.
Appeals over deleted names in West Bengal voter rolls
Then, on February 28, authorities published the final voter list for West Bengal. About 63 lakh names stood deleted. Meanwhile, more than 60 lakh names remained under adjudication.
Later, on March 10, the Court directed the constitution of appellate tribunals. Former High Court Chief Justices and judges were to form these tribunals. They would hear appeals against decisions of the judicial officers. The Court passed that direction because no independent appellate mechanism existed.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. He submitted that data was available in 44 lakh of the 60 lakh cases. He said the inclusion rate stood at around 55%, which covered 24 lakh persons. In contrast, he said the exclusion rate stood at about 45%, which covered 20 lakh persons.
Divan argued that the rejection rate appeared high despite judicial safeguards. He also stressed that these individuals had appeared in the 2002 voter list.
He further told the Court that 7 lakh of the 20 lakh deleted electors had already filed appeals. Several lakh more were in the process of filing appeals. He added that the authorities had notified the appellate tribunals on March 10. However, the tribunals had not become fully operational, and only a few matters had come up.
Against this backdrop, Divan asked the Court to direct the tribunals to dispose of all appeals by April 15, 2026. He said that step would allow publication of the final supplementary electoral roll by April 18, 2026, five days before polling.
He also urged the Court to allow inclusion of voters whose appeals remain pending beyond April 15. In that way, he argued, the process could avoid disenfranchisement.
Court refuses interim relief in West Bengal voter rolls dispute
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal supported that request. He suggested that appellate tribunals should have the power to grant interim relief when a prima facie case exists. For example, he said a deleted voter who holds a passport may be able to show such a prima facie case.
The Bench did not accept that suggestion. Justice Bagchi said the Court could not grant such interim relief in these cases. He noted that judicial officers had already completed verification at the first stage. Therefore, he said, the process had to stop at a certain point.
He added that the supplementary electoral roll would include those who clear verification. At the same time, he said the appellate tribunals would continue to hear appeals separately. He also stressed that the Court should not rush the appellate process.
“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.
Divan then argued that the tribunal mechanism would lose effectiveness if the authorities do not permit a supplementary voter list after appeal decisions.
The Court, however, refused to pass any direction on that issue. Responding to the submission, the Chief Justice said, “We are completely silent on this issue. Let the tribunals evolve their own procedure.”
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025
Case Title: Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India and Ors.
Also read: Section 528 BNSS quashing: SC ruling
