Bengal SIR: Appeals against voter inclusion were filed by state poll officials, EC tells SC

The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that appeals challenging the inclusion of voters were filed by officials in the West Bengal chief electoral officer’s office. They acted in their capacity as authorities under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. This clarified who initiated at least 16.1 lakh appeals that had previously been reported without identifying the filers.

The state chief electoral officer’s office conveyed this position to the Election Commission in a letter dated October 22. The disclosure followed questions about who had authorised the appeals and who had filed them. Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had earlier asked officials for those details.

The issue forms part of petitions alleging unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar during the revision. The Commission also said the targeted voters were already on the rolls and entitled to vote in April’s Assembly elections. That made the appeals especially significant because they challenged existing voter inclusions.

A special intensive revision, or SIR, is a detailed exercise to check, update, and determine entries on electoral rolls. It can involve confirming existing names, removing entries considered ineligible or doubtful, and handling objections or appeals. In West Bengal, the exercise was conducted ahead of Assembly elections held in April.

The revision produced several stages of review. The final rolls published in February initially excluded more than 61 lakh voters. Supplementary lists and adjudication then continued for about 60 lakh cases described as “doubtful and pending.” By April 6, about 91 lakh voters had been removed from the rolls.

The scale made the exercise politically and legally contentious. The article reports concerns that genuine electors could lose their voting rights and that election outcomes could be affected. In May, the Supreme Court upheld the exercise’s legality but said the Commission could not decide whether someone was an Indian citizen.

Of the 38.2 lakh appeals filed during West Bengal’s special intensive revision, 22.2 lakh were filed by voters whose names had been deleted. These appeals represented about 82% of the 27 lakh voters whose names were deleted and placed under adjudication during the revision.

At least 16.1 lakh appeals challenged the inclusion of voters. The Election Commission initially gave the Supreme Court the number without specifying who had filed them. It later said officials from the West Bengal chief electoral officer’s office had filed those inclusion appeals as statutory authorities.

The figures show that both deletions and inclusions were being contested. Voters could appeal when their names disappeared, while inclusion appeals questioned whether existing entries should remain. The process therefore affected both sides of the electoral roll. It also raised questions about official authority, transparency, and the possible impact on voting rights before the Assembly election.

The disclosure mattered because the voters targeted by the inclusion appeals were not outside the electoral system. They were already on West Bengal’s electoral rolls and, according to the Election Commission, were entitled to vote in the Assembly elections held in April. The appeals therefore questioned existing registrations.

This differs from an ordinary request to add a new voter. An inclusion appeal challenges whether a person already listed should remain there. Here, state poll officials filed at least 16.1 lakh such appeals. The article says the West Bengal chief electoral officer’s office acted as authorities under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The situation raised concerns about process and authority. Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had asked who authorised and filed the appeals, saying key officials had not been informed about their basis or process. The disclosure became part of petitions alleging unilateral decision-making during the revision.

When a voter’s inclusion or deletion is challenged, an appeal is a formal request for a tribunal to examine the decision. The tribunal considers the disputed electoral-roll entry and the challenge against it. Its role is to adjudicate whether the entry should stand, be removed, or be reconsidered. The article gives this broad mechanism but not the detailed hearing rules.

West Bengal’s revision specifically allowed appeals before tribunals against decisions taken during the exercise. Voters whose names were deleted filed 22.2 lakh appeals. Separately, at least 16.1 lakh appeals challenged the inclusion of voters already on the rolls. These figures show that the appeal process covered both kinds of disputes.

The mechanism mattered because the revision affected millions of entries before an Assembly election. It offered a route to contest decisions, but also created questions about who could initiate challenges. The Election Commission later identified state chief electoral officer’s office officials as the filers of the inclusion appeals.

Large-scale deletions can prevent genuine electors from voting if their names disappear and they cannot have them restored in time. The article says the revision raised concerns that people could be denied their right to vote. It also reports that the deletions could influence the balance of an election, especially where contests are close.

A concrete example came from Scroll’s analysis of West Bengal’s Assembly results. In half the seats won by the Bharatiya Janata Party, the total deletions during the revision outnumbered the victory margin. The BJP won 207 of the Assembly’s 294 seats, while the Trinamool Congress won 80.

The figures do not establish that deletions changed any particular result. They do show why the process became contentious. If large numbers of names are removed, affected voters may need appeals and adjudication to regain access. The article also records protests and continuing legal scrutiny over how the revision was conducted.

Being eligible for an electoral roll concerns whether a person should be included as a voter under election rules. Indian citizenship is a broader legal status. A person’s roll entry may be reviewed, included, or deleted during an electoral-roll exercise, but that review does not itself settle citizenship.

The distinction matters because the SIR involved decisions about entries on West Bengal’s rolls. Appeals could challenge whether voters should be included or removed. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the exercise in May, but expressly said this did not mean the Election Commission could decide whether a person was an Indian citizen.

Thus, the Commission has authority over electoral-roll preparation and revision, including disputed inclusions and deletions. It does not have authority to make the final determination of Indian citizenship through that exercise. The article says this boundary became important as concerns grew over deleted voters and the consequences of the revision.