West Bengal SIR: Supreme Court Directs To Form Appellate Tribunals Of Ex-HC Judges For Appeals Against Exclusions
During the hearing, CJI remarked, "We are doubting the bona fides of both sides."
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that Appellate Tribunals comprising former High Court Chief Justices and former High Court Judges be constituted to hear appeals against exclusions in the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, after concerns were raised about the absence of an independent appellate mechanism.
This follows the earlier directions of the Court, as per which Judicial Officers, from Bengal and neighbouring states, were deployed to adjudicate SIR claims, in view of the blame-game between the State and the Election Commission of India.
During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners flagged two issues before the Court. The first related to the mechanism of appeal available to persons whose claims are rejected by the Judicial Officers (JOs) during the revision process. The second concerned the publication of supplementary lists of persons whose objections have already been disposed of, particularly in view of the large number of objections, reportedly exceeding ten lakh.
Addressing the first issue, the Court recalled its order dated February 24, in which it had clarified that orders passed by the Judicial Officers would not be subjected to appeal before any executive or administrative forum.
In view of this, the Court observed that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court may request some former Chief Justices and two or three former High Court Judges, preferably from the Calcutta High Court or neighbouring States, to serve as members of the appellate tribunals. Once their names are recommended, the Election Commission of India (ECI) may notify them as Appellate Tribunals to hear appeals arising from the SIR process. The Court left it to the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to decide how many members should be on the Appellate Tribunal Benches.
The Court further requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to fix the honorarium payable to the former Chief Justices or judges who agree to serve on the tribunals. The honorarium may be determined in consultation with the Election Commission of India, which will bear the entire expense.
With respect to the second issue concerning the publication of supplementary lists of persons whose objections have already been disposed of, the Court granted liberty to both sides to approach the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.
The Court observed that once the Chief Justice makes an appropriate recommendation regarding publication of such supplementary lists, the Election Commission of India should act upon it.
Senior Advocates Menaka Guruswamy, Kalyan Bandhopadhyay and Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the petitioners.
Status Of Objections And Deployment Of Judicial Officers
The Court noted a communication received from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, which stated that 10.16 lakh objections had been disposed of as of the evening of March 9.
According to the communication, 500 Judicial Officers from West Bengal and around 200 Judicial Officers from Odisha and Jharkhand have been deployed for the exercise and are working day and night.
It further informed the Court that around 700 login IDs had been created by March 8, 2026 to facilitate smooth mobilisation and redeployment of Judicial Officers in certain sensitive districts.
However, the Judicial Officers were facing certain urgent logistical and technical difficulties, which the Court observed appeared to have arisen at the level of the Election Commission of India. The issue was brought to the notice of ECI's counsel Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, who assured the Court that the problems would be rectified without delay.
The Court strongly recommended that the ECI provide full logistical support to the Calcutta High Court and the Judicial Officers to enable them to complete their responsibilities. It also directed the State government to provide all necessary facilities for the conduct of the exercise.
Directions Issued By The Court
The Court issued the following directions to ensure the smooth continuation of the process:
The Election Commission of India shall ensure that no mandatory requirement is introduced which might disrupt the process, unless approved by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.
Technical issues relating to the portal which are causing disruptions shall be effectively addressed so that no such disruption occurs in the process.
New login IDs shall be created promptly as and when required by the Judicial Officers, without any delay.
Refuses to entertain plea against exclusion
During the hearing, the Court expressed serious unhappiness with an application filed seeking to direct the ECI to withdraw the additional cases given to judicial officers for verification.
The bench expressed unhappiness with an application questioning the competence of judicial officers, who have been deployed by the Supreme Court to adjudicate the SIR claims.
"Now the game begins. We knew you people will run away when judicial officers are appointed. HC Chief justice has told us 10 lakhs decided. Today morning we are informed. Your application is premature and it shows as if you don't have trust. How did you dare such applications are filed? No one should dare question the judicial officers," CJI Surya Kant said. However, Guruswamy and Bandhopadhyay clarified that the application was not filed by them.
Expressing unhappiness with both the petitioners and the ECI, CJI said, "A stage has come where we are doubting both the sides. We are doubting the bona fides of both sides."
The bench refused to entertain two new writ petitions (Bilkis Tarafdar v. ECI, Om Prakash Shaw v. ECI) filed by persons who claimed that they were illegally excluded from the final list. Dismissing the petitions as withdrawn, the Court granted them liberty to avail the appellate remedies.
Earlier developments
In January, the Court had issued certain directions to the ECI to ensure a smooth and transparent verification of persons included in the 'logical discrepancy' list after the publication of the draft roll.
On February 9, the Court issued another set of directions with respect to SIR in West Bengal. It directed the State to make available to the Election Commission of India Group B officers for SIR duties, who can replace the micro-observers deployed by the ECI. The Court also clarified that final orders on claims and objections can be passed only by the Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), and that the micro-observers can only assist them.
It further directed the Director General of Police of the State to file a personal affidavit responding to the concerns raised by the ECI regarding failure to stop threats and violence against SIR officials. The Court also ordered that the deadline for the scrutiny of documents and objections be extended at least for a week from February 14, the scheduled date for publication of the final list.
On February 20, given a "trust deficit" between the West Bengal government and the ECI, the Court directed appointment of judicial officers for the adjudication of claims and objections in the SIR process of the state. Publication of the final list of voters, so far as the process is completed, was allowed on the scheduled date of February 28. The Court said that the ECI can publish supplementary lists after the final date. The Court also directed the WB Director General of Police to file a supplementary affidavit on the steps taken on complaints regarding threats to SIR officers.
Subsequently, the Court allowed judicial officers from Odisha and Jharkhand also to be deployed to decide the claims and objections in the SIR process in West Bengal, in view of the insufficient number of judges in West Bengal, to adjudicate matters in a time-bound manner. It also allowed Civil Judges, both of Senior Division and Junior Division, having at least 3 years of experience, to be used for the SIR work, in addition to the judges in the rank of District Judges.
On February 28, the final voter list of West Bengal was published, with about 63 lakh names deleted. Over 60 lakh names were said to be under adjudication.
Case : MOSTARI BANU v. ECI W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025, DOLA SEN v. ECI W.P.(C) No. 1074/2025, BILKIS TARAFDAR AND ORS. v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR. | W.P.(C) No. 304/2026, OM PRAKASH SHAW AND ORS. v ECI W.P.(C) No. 305/2026 and connected cases.