Deleted in SIR, four Bengal men now locked at Chhattisgarh detention centre for over a month

What happened to the four migrant workers from Murshidabad after their names were deleted from West Bengal’s voters list?

After their names disappeared from West Bengal’s electoral rolls during the SIR exercise, four migrant workers faced detention in Chhattisgarh. Police suspected them of being Bangladeshi nationals, although they had travelled there temporarily to sell goods and find work. Their families say their permanent homes and roots are in Murshidabad.

The men are Sabir Sheikh, Safikul Islam, Nasiruddin Sheikh, and Laltu Sheikh. Police detained them with 19 other workers on September 4 in Bilaspur. The group was moved from the Bilaspur Superintendent’s office to a holding centre in Raipur. Authorities cited the workers’ deleted voter registrations while questioning their nationality.

A civil court ordered the release of the other 19 workers on September 18. The four men remained detained for about a month when the article was published. Their families have approached the Calcutta High Court, arguing that detention is unlawful while appeals against roll deletions remain pending.

What is a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls, and why might a person’s name be removed during it?

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed verification and updating exercise for electoral rolls. Election authorities review voter information and may retain, add, correct, or delete names. The purpose is to keep the rolls accurate and prevent ineligible or duplicate registrations. It matters because inclusion determines whether a person can vote.

The article says the Election Commission flagged a “logical discrepancy” in notices sent to Safikul and his brother Asikul. Six other people also reportedly identified Riyajul Sheikh as their father. That inconsistency led to the brothers’ names being removed. Their family says they possess documents for old and new homes in Samserganj.

The article does not provide a complete legal list of every reason for deletion. In general, names can be removed after verification problems, duplication, death, relocation, or failure to establish eligibility. Removal is contestable, however. The affected people can appeal, and these appeals were still pending before a tribunal.

How many workers were detained, how many were released, and how long have the four remaining men been held?

The detention began with 23 migrant workers from West Bengal. Chhattisgarh Police detained them on September 4 from their residences in Chunchiapara-Ganesh Nagar, Bilaspur. Officers suspected that they were Bangladeshi nationals and first took them to the Bilaspur Police Superintendent’s office.

The workers were then moved to a Raipur holding centre for illegal immigrants. On September 18, a local civil court ordered the release of 19 people. The four named men—Sabir Sheikh, Safikul Islam, Nasiruddin Sheikh, and Laltu Sheikh—were not released. Their voter-list deletions were raised while police questioned their nationality.

The article says the four had been detained for about a month at the time of reporting. Its publication date was October 6, 2026. Thus, the reported sequence is clear: 23 detained, 19 released, and four still held. Their families later petitioned the Calcutta High Court for directions to secure their release.

Why did Chhattisgarh Police use the deletion of the men’s names from the voters list as a reason to question whether they were Indian citizens?

Chhattisgarh Police used the deletions as part of their suspicion that the four men were Bangladeshi nationals. In court, police questioned the workers’ nationality partly because their names had been removed during the SIR exercise. This connected an unresolved electoral-roll issue with a much larger citizenship question.

The article gives a specific example. Safikul and Asikul’s father, Riyajul, and another son remained on the voter list, while Safikul and Asikul were removed. The notices cited a “logical discrepancy” because six other people also claimed Riyajul as their father. The family said it had documents proving long residence in India.

That connection is controversial because the deletions were under appeal. The Calcutta High Court questioned how another authority could decide citizenship while a tribunal was considering restoration of the names. The court also asked how the FRRO could determine citizenship. The case therefore highlights the risk of treating a provisional roll dispute as conclusive nationality evidence.

What are the roles of the Election Commission, the citizenship tribunal, the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, and the courts in this dispute?

The Election Commission conducts and oversees the electoral-roll process. In this dispute, it issued notices and removed names after identifying a reported “logical discrepancy.” Its decision affects voter registration, but the article shows that the decision was being challenged rather than treated as final by the families.

The citizenship tribunal is the appeal forum for people seeking restoration of deleted names. The article says the Supreme Court formed the tribunal to decide such appeals. The four men’s applications were still pending. The FRRO, or Foreigners Regional Registration Office, became involved because the High Court questioned how it could decide their citizenship while the tribunal process continued.

Courts provide oversight and can order release or examine legality. A local civil court released 19 workers. The Calcutta High Court heard the families’ petition and criticised what it called the State’s “double standard.” It asked whether authorities could treat people as non-citizens before the appellate process had finished.

What can happen to people and their families when detention takes place before an appeal about their electoral-roll status has been decided?

Detention affects more than the person taken into custody. Families may lose income, childcare, and regular contact. The uncertainty becomes especially severe when detention occurs before an appeal is decided, because relatives do not know whether the person will be released or transferred elsewhere.

Laltu’s wife, Sabera Khatun, was caring for their one-year-old child near the Ganges in Samserganj. She said she had not heard her husband’s voice for two months. A neighbour who visited the detention centre reportedly saw the detained men crying and asking about their children. Sabera said they could not meet people or call family.

The families argue that the detention was arbitrary because appeals against electoral-roll deletions were still pending. The Calcutta High Court heard their petition seeking release. The case raises a broader procedural concern: authorities may cause serious personal harm if they impose detention before the relevant review has reached a decision. The eventual court and tribunal rulings will determine the next steps.

How are citizenship, the right to vote, electoral-roll inclusion, and due process connected—and why does removal from a voters list not automatically settle someone’s nationality?

Citizenship concerns a person’s legal membership in a country. The right to vote is a political right usually attached to citizenship and other legal conditions. Electoral-roll inclusion records eligibility to vote, but an entry can contain errors or be challenged. Due process requires authorities to follow the proper procedure before imposing serious consequences.

This distinction matters in the Murshidabad case. Safikul and Asikul were removed after officials cited a family-information discrepancy. Their father, Riyajul, said the family had documents for homes in Samserganj. The men then appealed to the tribunal. Their names’ removal was therefore an unresolved electoral matter, not a completed citizenship ruling.

The High Court highlighted the problem by asking what the tribunal could decide if other authorities already treated the men as non-citizens. It also questioned how the FRRO could decide citizenship. The case shows why agencies should respect separate legal roles and allow appeals to finish before treating roll deletion as proof of nationality.

Key Facts:

📌 Four Murshidabad workers remained detained in Raipur.

📌 Police suspected them of being Bangladeshi nationals.

📌 Their families say they have permanent roots in West Bengal.

📌 SIR reviews and updates electoral rolls.

📌 A reported “logical discrepancy” led to some deletions.

📌 Affected voters can appeal deletions before a tribunal.

📌 Police detained 23 workers on September 4.