West Bengal SIR |'If Winning Margin Is 2 % & 15% Couldn't Vote?' : Justice Bagchi Raises Concerns, Says ECI Deviated From Bihar Stance

Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court on Monday raised certain concerns about the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in the State of West Bengal, emphasising the need to have a "robust appellate mechanism" to consider the appeals filed by persons who were deleted from the electoral rolls.

Justice Bagchi noted that when it came to West Bengal, the Election Commission of India deviated from the process in other states and introduced a new category of 'Logical Discrepancy'. Justice Bagchi also stated that the ECI deviated from the stand taken in the Bihar SIR matter that persons who were mapped in the 2002 electoral roll need not upload documents.

Justice Bagchi stated that judicial officers, who are performing SIR adjudication, cannot be expected to work with 100% accuracy amidst the high-pressure situation. When a person is dealing with over 1000 documents a day against a tight deadline, even an accuracy of 70 % would be deemed 'excellent', Justice Bagchi said. Hence, there was a need for a robust appellate mechanism, he stated.

"If 10% of the electorate does not vote and the winning margin is more than 10%...what will happen? Suppose margin is 2% and 15% of electorate who are mapped could not vote, then maybe, we are not expressing any opinion, but we would definitely have to apply our minds. Please keep this in mind that the concern of a vigilant voter whose name correctly or incorrectly is not in the list is not in our minds," Justice Bagchi told the Election Commission.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by petitioners, whose appeals against their exclusions from the voter roll are pending before the Appellate Tribunals. The petitioners sought that the date of freezing of electoral rolls be extended, so that they can vote in the impending assembly elections, in the event their appeals are allowed. The electoral rolls are frozen as on April 9. The petitioners underscored that they were mapped in the 2002 roll and possessed Aadhaar cards and Passports.

At the outset, CJI Surya Kant expressed reluctance to interfere, saying that the Tribunal should decide. The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, submitted that the ECI was not cooperating with the Appellate Tribunal by producing the materials.

Justice Bagchi then observed that the ECI had deviated from its stand in the Bihar SIR that voters mapped in the 2002 roll need not produce documents.

"When the Bihar SIR was argued, the submissions of ECI were unequivocal that the 2002 list members need not give any document. Please see your written submissions in Bihar case. You had said the 2002 electorate need not give documents."

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the ECI, submitted that such persons need not upload any documents, except showing that they are the same person mapped in the 2002 roll. "Now you are improvising the submissions which you made earlier," Justice Bagchi said.

When Naidu said that the rejection rate after the SIR adjudication was 47%, Justice Bagchi replied, "It's not end justifying means but means justifying the end."

He added that it must not be a blame game between the State and the ECI but must be about the "voter being sandwiched between two Constitutional authorities."

"We employed judicial officers where there was trust deficit. The volume at which they have to do, there is a chance of error.  If you go through 1000 documents a day, if the accuracy is 70 percent then the activity should be rated as excellent. There will always be a margin of error. We need to have a robust appellate mechanism and a continuing right," Justice Bagchi said.

"Right to vote in a country you were born is not only constitutional but sentimental. It is like you are a part of democracy and help in electing a government," he added.

Justice Bagchi emphasised that the appellate tribunals must hear the appeals on the "principles of inclusion. Justice Bagchi noted that the 19 tribunals will have to hear more than a lakh appeals.

However, the Chief Justice expressed reluctance to entertain the petition, saying that the appeal must be pursued.  

"We will not entertain this. Better you pursue there (before AT). Once documents have been scrutinized...," CJI said.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the Appellate Tribunal held in another case that the rejection was made without scrutinising the documents. The CJI did not appreciate this submission, saying that the judicial officers cannot be disrespected.

The bench dismissed the petition, leaving open the remedy of appeal to the petitioners. If the petitioners' appeals are allowed, "necessary consequences shall follow," the bench clarified.

Case : QUARAISHA YEASMIN AND ORS. v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.| W.P.(C) No. 462/2026