Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Clarity Over Appellate Mechanism For Voters Deleted From West Bengal Electoral Roll After SIR

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday (April 22) dismissed a PIL seeking clarity over Appellate Mechanism which can be used by voters whose names have been deleted from West Bengal electoral roll, ahead of the upcoming legislative assembly elections. 

Notably, the elections are scheduled on Thursday (April 23) and April 29. 

The petition, filed by Sk Anwar Ali, contends that despite directions issued by the Supreme Court in the batch of matters concerning the West Bengal SIR process, the appellate mechanism for aggrieved voters remains “unclear, inaccessible, and inconsistently implemented.”

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel Jhuma Sen submitted before a division bench presided over by Chief Justice Sujoy Paul, that the petition was not per-se SIR related but pertained to difficulties faced by individuals in accessing appellate tribunals.

It was submitted that despite Supreme Court directions in matters concerning West Bengal SIR process, the Appellate mechanism for aggrieved voters remains “unclear".

At this stage the Chief Justice orally said, "the Supreme Court has said that the Appellate tribunals must decide their own procedure". 

To this, Sen submitted that her reading of Supreme Court's orders of March 10 and March 16 was that the high court "has been vested with powers of the Appellate Tribunal". 

She submitted that order dated March 10 in paragraph 11, states that Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court is to set up the appellate tribunals, which shall be notified by the ECI. 

"They also asked the High Court Chief Justice to fix the honorarium of those helming these tribunals. This was also for the publication of the supplementary lists," Sen added.

At this stage, Chief Justice orally asked, "After constitution of tribunal, what part of the order gives the Chief Justice power to decide on their functioning?".

To this, Sen said that the order gives the Chief Justice the role of supervision. However the court again orally asked as to where in the Supreme Court orders is this power clearly given. 

"What you are saying is your submission not what Supreme Court has said," the Chief Justice said. 

Sen submitted that the order states that the Chief Justice may establish the tribunals and set up a procedure for the same and to accelerate the process for the same; therefore the Supreme Court has requested the High Court to formulate the SOP.

Remarking that the lines were being read "incorrectly" the Chief Justice orally said, "...The Chief Justice on administrative side. Not High Court was directed to issue the SOP. Madam you are forgetting that we don't have day to day supervisory power over a tribunal". 

Sen however requested that the SOP be made public stating that the prayer was to only strengthen the tribunal.

To this the Chief Justice orally said, "this is not maintainable. You know fully well, and still you are approaching the incorrect forum. We are not inclined to entertain". The court further orally said that what was being argued was not part of the Supreme Court order. 

After some hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the matter, and the court dismissed the PIL as withdrawn. 

The plea sought a transparent and uniform framework for appeals before the 19 Appellate Tribunals constituted to hear disputes relating to inclusion and exclusion of names from the voter list. 

The petitioner has alleged that lakhs of genuine voters face disenfranchisement ahead of the State Assembly elections due to the absence of clear procedures, timelines and communication regarding the appellate process. 

It is stated that affected electors remain uncertain about how to file appeals, whether supporting documents can be submitted, how hearing dates will be communicated, and whether representation through advocates would be permitted. 

According to the plea, the Election Commission had announced the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls in West Bengal on October 27, 2025. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, while hearing Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India, directed creation of an appellate mechanism through tribunals headed by former judges. 

Thereafter, 19 Appellate Tribunals were constituted in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. 

The petition refers to subsequent Supreme Court orders noting that over 34 lakh appeals had already been filed before the Appellate Tribunals, including appeals against alleged wrongful exclusion and objections to wrongful inclusion. The Tribunals were directed to function in accordance with a Standard Operating Procedure framed by a three-member committee of former judges. 

The plea further highlights that the Supreme Court, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, directed that where appeals are decided by April 21 or April 27 (depending on the polling phase), such decisions must be reflected in supplementary revised rolls so that eligible persons may vote. However, mere pendency of appeals would not entitle excluded persons to vote. 

Against this backdrop, the petitioner argues that in the absence of prescribed timelines for disposal of appeals, similarly situated electors may be treated differently depending on the polling phase of their constituency or the fortuitous date on which their appeal is heard. 

This, it is contended, results in arbitrary discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The plea also questions the alleged use of a vague criterion of “logical discrepancy” for excluding persons from electoral rolls, asserting that the burden has unlawfully been shifted onto citizens to prove their eligibility, thereby affecting rights under Article 326 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950. 

Among the issues raised are whether fresh documents may be submitted during appeals, whether video-conference hearings can be held for distant districts, whether written orders will be supplied, and whether any final deadline exists for filing and deciding appeals. 

Case Title: Sk Anwar Ali v. Election Commission of India & Ors.