ECI Cites Supreme Court Orders To Justify Filing Of 16.10 Lakh Appeals Against Voter Inclusions In West Bengal SIR
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that 16.10 lakh appeals filed against the inclusion of voters after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the West Bengal were filed by the officers of the State's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO).
Further, the ECI has cited Supreme Court orders to justify its decision to file those appeals.
In a counter-affidavit filed on October 26 in a petition challenging 14 alleged unilateral decisions concerning the SIR exercise, the ECI has cited the Supreme Court orders in Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India dated April 1, 2026 and April 6, 2026.
These orders addressed appeals against decisions taken by judicial officers during the West Bengal SIR, including appeals by ECI authorities aggrieved by voter inclusions, and directed appellate tribunals to examine the relevant records and decide the appeals in accordance with natural justice.
The affidavit has been filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of ECI, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar as well as Election Commissioners Sukhbir Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petition challenging the alleged unilateral decisions has questioned the authority under which approximately 16.10 lakh appeals against voter inclusions were filed in the name of the ECI in West Bengal. According to the petition, an August 12, 2026 noting attributed to Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu raised the question – “Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?” The petitioner has sought production of the relevant authorisation, approval and decision-making records.
In the SIR exercise in West Bengal, the Supreme Court appointed judicial officers to adjudicate claims and objections in the SIR. The Court subsequently directed the constitution of appellate tribunals to hear appeals against exclusions from voter rolls.
In its April 1 order, the Court recorded the ECI counsel's submission that appellate tribunals would have access to the relevant records in appeals filed both by persons challenging voter exclusions and by ECI authorities challenging voter inclusions.
The Court also asked the appellate tribunals to examine the complete records, including the reasons given by the judicial officers, before deciding the appeals. It said that the tribunals could evolve their own procedure consistent with natural justice and should provide the affected parties a fair opportunity of hearing. The Court reiterated this in its April 6 order, which also mentions appeals by ECI.
The April 6 order states, “The premises shortlisted for the functioning of these appellate tribunals are duly mentioned in paragraph 6 of our order dated 01.04.2026. We also clarified through paragraph 9 of that order that the alleged non-availability of reasons for rejection of the objections by the adjudicating officers could be raised before the Appellate Tribunals by persons whose names have been excluded from the voters' list or by such objectors/authorities of the ECI, who might be aggrieved by the inclusion of certain names in the voter list.”
In its affidavit, the ECI has stated that under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), District Election Officer (DEO), Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) and Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) are the authorities responsible for electoral rolls. It states that the appeals in question had been filed by officers of the CEO's office in their capacity as authorities under the Act. According to the ECI, these officers were authorised to file the appeals in terms of the Supreme Court's orders, and the matters were not brought to the Commission.
“As per provisions of the RP Act, the CEO / DEO / ERO / AERO are the authorities in respect of electoral rolls. It is submitted that a communication dt. 22.10.2026 has been received by the office of the ECI from the office of the CEO, West Bengal, stating that the said Appeals have been filed by the officers of the Office of the CEO, West Bengal, in their capacity as authorities under the RP Act. The officers had the authority to file the Appeals as per the orders of this Hon'ble Court and these matters were not brought to the Commission”, the affidavit states.
The present petition seeks a declaration that decisions vested in the ECI as a multi-member body cannot be taken unilaterally by the CEC. It also seeks production of the Commission's original records and suspension of Gyanesh Kumar pending adjudication.
The petition relies on allegations that 14 decisions connected with the SIR exercise were taken in the CEC's name despite objections by the other Election Commissioners. The appeals against voter inclusions in West Bengal are cited as one of the unilateral actions.
In its counter-affidavit, the ECI maintains that decisions concerning the SIR were taken by the Commission in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The ECI has stated that observations, suggestions or queries raised by individual Commissioners during deliberations do not, by themselves, constitute decisions of the Commission.
The Supreme Court had issued notice on the challenge to the alleged unilateral decisions on October 5, declining at that stage to suspend the CEC without first obtaining responses from the respondents.
Also Read - All SIR Decisions Unanimously Taken; Form 6 Not Amended : ECI Tells Supreme Court