Oppositions in West Bengal question ECI over 16.10 lakh appeals against inclusion of voters

The 16.10 lakh appeals challenge the inclusion of voters in West Bengal’s electoral rolls. They seek to remove people whose names had already been cleared by judicial officers during the Special Intensive Revision. This matters because an appeal could affect whether a person remains registered to vote.

The timing has created the main controversy. The SIR ended in February 2026, but the appeals became a public issue afterward. The Election Commission said West Bengal officials filed them under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and had authority under Supreme Court orders. The former special observer, Subrata Gupta, said he had no information about the filing.

The Election Commission said it learned about the appeals only later. Its affidavit recorded that the Chief Electoral Officer’s office had filed them in an official capacity. Opposition parties say this lack of clarity shows weak oversight. The appeals remain part of a wider dispute involving millions of voters and the conduct of the revision.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a thorough exercise to check, update, and correct an electoral roll. It examines voter records and can lead to names being included, excluded, or challenged. The purpose is to maintain a reliable list of eligible electors before an election.

West Bengal’s SIR took place from October 2025 to February 2026, shortly before the Assembly election. The exercise reportedly deleted 91 lakh electors, about 13% of the State’s electorate before the revision. The Election Commission also reported exclusions for logical discrepancies and appeals against both exclusion and inclusion.

The scale made the process politically and legally important. More than 22 lakh excluded voters appealed, while 16.10 lakh appeals challenged inclusion. About 38 lakh electors remained in uncertainty before SIR tribunals. Opposition parties have questioned the process, the officials involved, and the transparency of decisions affecting voters.

The voter-list change was extremely large. The SIR reportedly removed 91 lakh electors from West Bengal’s rolls, equal to about 13% of the electorate before the revision. That figure describes deletions from the rolls, while the 16.10 lakh figure describes appeals against the inclusion of voters.

The two numbers therefore measure different actions. The 91 lakh electors were deleted during the revision. The 16.10 lakh appeals were filed against names that had been cleared for inclusion. Comparing the figures, 16.10 lakh is about 17.7%, or roughly one in six, of 91 lakh.

Both figures illustrate the scale of the dispute before the Assembly election. The Election Commission also reported 27 lakh exclusions for logical discrepancies, with more than 22 lakh appeals against those exclusions. About 38 lakh electors still awaited decisions before SIR tribunals, leaving the final rolls contested.

The Election Commission said officials from the Chief Electoral Officer’s office in West Bengal filed the appeals. It said they acted as authorities under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and had authority under Supreme Court orders. A communication from the CEO’s office dated October 22 conveyed this position.

The controversy concerns oversight and accountability. Subrata Gupta, the former special observer appointed for the SIR, reportedly said he had no information about the CEO office filing appeals. The Election Commission’s October 26 affidavit also said the appeals had not previously been brought to its notice.

Opposition parties say these statements leave basic questions unanswered. They want to know who approved the appeals, who supervised them, and why the Election Commission was apparently informed later. The CPI(M) called the episode a “ghostly affair,” while the Trinamool Congress alleged institutional opacity and a lack of oversight.

A challenged inclusion means a voter’s place on the electoral roll is not fully secure. While the appeal is pending, the person’s status may remain unresolved. The article does not state that every challenged voter has already been removed or explain a single automatic rule for handling them.

The key mechanism is review by SIR tribunals. They are the bodies set up by the Election Commission to consider disputes over the revised rolls. Their decisions could determine whether challenged names remain included or are removed. The article says appeals were filed against voters whose inclusion had been cleared by judicial officers.

The current position is unsettled. The Election Commission’s September affidavit said 16.10 lakh appeals challenged inclusion, while about 38 lakh electors in related disputes still awaited tribunal decisions. Until those cases are resolved, the final status of affected voters remains uncertain, with possible consequences for their participation in the election.

Electoral-roll reviews provide a corrective path when a voter’s record is wrongly excluded or included. Affected people or authorised officials can challenge a decision through an appeal. An independent review can then examine the disputed entry and decide whether it should remain, change, or be removed.

West Bengal’s process shows both directions of review. More than 22 lakh voters appealed after being excluded for reasons including logical discrepancies. Separately, 16.10 lakh appeals challenged the inclusion of voters whose names had been cleared by judicial officers. SIR tribunals are handling the unresolved disputes.

This process can improve accuracy, but it also depends on clear authority and fair oversight. The article says about 38 lakh electors still awaited decisions. That means reviews may correct errors, yet delays or unclear responsibility can leave voters uncertain during a politically important revision before the Assembly election.

An electoral roll is the official list of people registered to vote in a particular election area. It identifies who can participate in the electoral process. Keeping it accurate means correcting mistakes while preserving the names of legitimate voters.

West Bengal’s SIR demonstrates why this matters. The exercise reportedly deleted 91 lakh electors, including 27 lakh excluded for logical discrepancies. More than 22 lakh people appealed those exclusions. At the same time, 16.10 lakh appeals challenged the inclusion of other voters. These figures show how revisions can affect millions.

Accurate registration supports representative democracy by ensuring that eligible citizens are not wrongly left out and that the roll remains trusted. The article says about 38 lakh electors still awaited tribunal decisions. Their unresolved status shows why transparent procedures, accountable officials, and timely reviews are important when electoral rolls are changed before an election.