Judges deciding Bengal voters’ appeals asked to prove their own identity by EC

The West Bengal appellate-tribunal judges stopped using the Election Commission’s portal after an Aadhaar authentication feature appeared on September 21. They had been appointed on Supreme Court orders to decide appeals involving electoral-roll deletions and inclusions. Their refusal matters because the portal is used to process those appeals.

On September 24, the tribunals’ venue-in-charge wrote to the West Bengal additional chief electoral officer, requesting removal of the Aadhaar authentication screen. The judges then did not log in or dispose of appeals through the portal. The Election Commission later sought another form of online authentication: digital signature certificates created using PAN details and government-issued identity cards.

The judges continued working offline, according to sources, but the online appeals process has remained stalled. The article does not give the judges’ detailed reason for objecting to Aadhaar authentication. It records only their request to withdraw the feature and the resulting halt in portal-based disposal.

Aadhaar authentication is a process for confirming a person’s identity through Aadhaar-linked information. In a portal, it can act as an access check before someone uses official services or performs an authorised task. Here, the feature was added to the Election Commission’s appellate-tribunal portal on September 21.

The judges did not accept the new login requirement. On September 24, the tribunals’ venue-in-charge asked the West Bengal additional chief electoral officer to remove the Aadhaar authentication screen so the judges could dispose of appeals. The article does not identify whether their concern involved privacy, procedure, access, or another issue, so no particular reason can be confirmed.

The immediate effect was operational. The judges stopped logging in and disposing of appeals through the portal, while continuing to work offline, according to sources. The Election Commission later proposed digital signature certificates based on PAN and government identity cards instead, but the article does not say whether that alternative resolved the dispute.

A digital signature certificate is an electronic credential used to verify the signer of a digital document or decision. It links the signature to an identified person and helps show that the signed material came from that person. The article presents it as the Election Commission’s proposed replacement for the disputed Aadhaar authentication step.

The West Bengal chief electoral officer’s office asked judges to obtain certificates through a private agency. The process required PAN and government-ID scans, a photograph, a mobile number, an email address, an authorising person’s ID, and an authorisation letter. Applicants also had to complete phone and email one-time-password checks and video verification showing the original documents.

Once issued, such a certificate could allow a judge to sign or authenticate tribunal decisions online through the portal. The article does not describe the portal’s technical signing process or confirm that the judges obtained the certificates. Each certificate costs Rs 2,300 under government-notified rates, and the appeals remained stalled when the report was published.

The appeals backlog was extremely large: 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed, but only 1.26 lakh had been disposed of. Subtracting those figures leaves about 37.05 lakh appeals still unresolved. The figures were provided by the Election Commission to the Supreme Court in September.

The delay is linked to a dispute over how judges access the online appellate system. After Aadhaar authentication was added to the portal, the judges asked that the screen be removed and stopped logging in. They continued working offline, according to sources, but did not dispose of appeals through the portal. The CEO’s office later proposed digital signature certificates as another authentication method.

The unresolved appeals concern voters affected by deletions or inclusions in West Bengal’s electoral rolls. Until tribunals process them, the article does not establish the final status of each appellant. It does show that the system faces a substantial queue, and that resolving the authentication issue is important for restarting online disposal.

The Supreme Court ordered judicial involvement because it noted a trust deficit between the then-Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal and the Election Commission. The court’s intervention made this revision process unusual. Instead of leaving voter-eligibility decisions only to the usual electoral administration, it ordered judicial officers to examine the cases.

The judicial officers reviewed 60.06 lakh electors’ cases and eventually deleted 27.16 lakh. On March 20, the Supreme Court ordered tribunals to decide appeals against both deletions and inclusions. These tribunals therefore became the forum for voters or affected parties challenging changes to the electoral roll.

The arrangement matters because a person’s presence or absence on the roll affects whether that person can participate as an elector. The article reports that appeals have since been disrupted by the portal authentication dispute. It does not say what the Supreme Court’s next step will be, but the tribunals’ pending work remains substantial.

When an appeal cannot be processed, the affected voter does not receive a decision from the tribunal on the challenged electoral-roll change. Such appeals concern deletions from or inclusions in West Bengal’s voter list. The article does not specify the individual consequence for every appellant, so it cannot establish whether each person is currently unable to vote.

The disruption began after judges refused to log in to the Election Commission’s portal because of its Aadhaar authentication screen. They asked for that feature to be removed and continued working offline, according to sources. However, they stopped disposing of appeals through the online system. The CEO’s office later proposed digital signature certificates as an alternative.

The practical result is a stalled appeals process affecting a large number of cases. Of 38.31 lakh appeals, only 1.26 lakh had been disposed of by September, leaving about 37.05 lakh unresolved. Until the authentication dispute and processing system are addressed, affected voters may have to wait for their challenges to be decided.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed review of an electoral roll. Its purpose is to examine voter records and decide which names should remain, be removed, or be added. In West Bengal, the review became especially significant because the Supreme Court later ordered judicial officers to decide voters’ eligibility.

The judicial officers examined 60.06 lakh electors’ cases and eventually deleted 27.16 lakh. The Supreme Court then ordered tribunals to hear appeals against deletions and inclusions. This creates a formal process for challenging a change to someone’s place on the electoral roll. The article does not describe the documents or eligibility tests used in each case.

Changing the voter list affects who is recognised as an elector for an election. A deleted name may leave a person needing a successful appeal before the record is changed back, while an inclusion determines that the person is listed. The article reports that tribunal processing has stalled online, leaving many appeals undecided.