The Supreme Court of India has lauded the “herculean task” completed by Judicial Officers in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The Court clarified that the findings of these neutral judicial bodies displace any prior presumption of correctness regarding voter inclusion, and that names found to be “not genuine” cannot be restored to the rolls while appeals are merely pending.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, addressed the legal challenges surrounding the SIR process in West Bengal. The Court held that since the verification was conducted by a neutral body of serving Judicial Officers, the exclusion of names is prima facie valid. While Appellate Tribunals are now functional to hear over 34 lakh appeals, the Court ruled that pendency of these appeals does not automatically restore a person’s right to vote.
Background: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR)
The SIR process was initiated in West Bengal to address significant disputes regarding the integrity of the electoral rolls. Amidst allegations and counter-allegations against both State and Election Commission of India (ECI) officials, the Supreme Court intervened using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
To ensure impartiality, the Court entrusted the adjudication of claims and objections to a special team of serving Judicial Officers. This team comprised officers from the State of West Bengal, assisted by their counterparts from Jharkhand and Odisha.
Arguments on Restoration and Fairness
Petitioners, whose names were moved to the ‘Adjudication Deleted List,’ argued that the deletions were arbitrary and void. They sought an immediate direction for the respondent authorities to restore their names to the electoral roll pending the final disposal of their appeals.
The Court, however, noted that these petitioners had already undergone a verification process by the Judicial Officers and were found to be “not genuine.”
Court’s Analysis: The Role of Neutral Judicial Oversight
The Bench observed that the involvement of Judicial Officers from three states transformed the SIR into a robust, neutral exercise. The Court noted:
“We say so because such verification displaces the presumption of correctness that was attached to their prior inclusion, particularly when viewed in light of the fact that the exercise has been undertaken by a neutral body comprising presently serving Judicial Officers.”
The Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court informed the Bench that the Judicial Officers had decided “more than sixty lakh objections” between the last week of February and the first week of April 2026. The Court formally acknowledged the “dedication and perseverance” of these officers, noting they worked under “exceptionally challenging and adverse circumstances.”
Establishment of Appellate Tribunals
To provide a final safeguard, the Court constituted 19 Appellate Tribunals headed by former Chief Justices and Judges of the Calcutta High Court. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was prepared on April 7, 2026, to ensure uniformity.
The Court emphasized that these Tribunals must “revisit the full records” and assign specific reasons for their decisions. However, the Court warned that granting voting rights based on “mere pendency” would disrupt the entire revision process:
“The resultant situation would effectively recreate the very state of affairs that existed prior to the entrustment of the verification exercise to the Judicial Officers. This, in our considered view, cannot be permitted.”
The Decision: Directions to ECI and Deadlines
In Paragraph 11 of the order, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide a clear mechanism for implementing successful appeals before the upcoming polling dates. The Court directed:
“We… direct the ECI that, wherever the Appellate Tribunals are able to decide the appeals by 21.04.2026 or 27.04.2026, as the case may be, such appellate orders shall be given effect to by issuing a supplementary revised electoral roll, and all necessary consequences with respect to the right to vote shall follow.”
This directive ensures that while mere pendency does not grant voting rights, any person who successfully proves their claim before the designated deadlines (April 21 or April 27) will be added to a supplementary list and permitted to vote.
The Court further clarified that petitioners may approach their respective Tribunals to request “out of turn” hearings to resolve their status before the state goes to the polls on April 23, 2026, or April 29, 2026.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 24, 2026, to monitor the progress of the appellate process.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mostari Banu v. The Election Commission of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 1089/2025 (and connected matters)
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date: April 13, 2026
