Wrong To Say SIR Adjudicated Deletions Led To Trinamool Loss In 31 Bengal Seats: ECI Tells Supreme Court

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has disputed All India Trinamool Congress(AITC) MP Derek O'Brien's claim that deletions made during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have affected the results in 31 West Bengal Assembly constituencies where the AITC lost, submitting before the Supreme Court that the figures relied upon by him improperly clubbed together different categories of deletions.

In its reply to O'Brien's application, the ECI has specifically contended that the figures relied upon by the applicant include deletions of names belonging to Absentee, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate (ASDD) categories, which, the Commission stated, were not adjudicated by Judicial Officers. It said such removals cannot be equated with deletions made following adjudication by Judicial Officers.

The affidavit states that Derek O Brien's figures included names removed on account of 'ASDD' entries from the draft roll, "which were deleted only after due process and verification as contemplated under the SIR Order". Such deletions of "ineligible entries" could not be equated with adjudicated deletions by Judicial Officers, ECI contends.

The ECI further said that notices were issued only in cases involving electors whose names appeared in the draft rolls and whose cases were referred for adjudication. No notices were issued in ASDD cases, which, according to the Commission, were never placed before Judicial Officers for adjudication.

"The attempt of the Applicant to portray all deletions as "effective disenfranchisement" is wholly incorrect and misleading. Even more troubling is the false projection that appeals against all such deletions were pending before the Learned Judicial Officers. The correct factual position is that notices were issued only in respect of those electors whose names appeared in the draft rolls and whose cases were referred for adjudication."

The ECI stated that when the ASDD entry removals are excluded, Derek O Brien's own data demonstrates that in many constituencies, the number of adjudicated deletions were lower than the margin of defeat.

As a sample, the ECI has cited four constituencies where the margin of defeat was higher than the number of deletions made under adjudication:

The affidavit says these figures undermine the theory that the adjudication exercise altered the electoral outcome.

ECI points to 21 constituencies won by AITC

The Commission has also relied on the other side of the same data relied upon by O'Brien.

According to the ECI, in 21 constituencies won by candidates belonging to O'Brien's party, the number of deletions under adjudication exceeded the margin of victory. It has therefore argued that, if the test proposed by O'Brien were applied consistently, the election results in those constituencies would also have to be questioned.  

The 21 constituencies cited by the ECI include Sitai (SC), Kumarganj, Harirampur, Ratua, Mothabari, Samserganj, Suti, Raghunathganj, Lalgola, Palashipara, Kaliganj, Amdanga, Kamarhati, Madhyamgram, Patharpratima, Raidighi, Mandirbazar (SC), Howrah Dakshin, Kharagpur, Khandaghosh (SC) and Bardhaman Uttar (SC).

For instance, the ECI states that in Sitai (SC) the margin of victory was 2,721 votes while the number of deletions under adjudication was 20,213. In Samserganj, the corresponding figures were 7,587 and 74,775, while in Lalgola, they were 18,960 and 55,420. 

The Commission has consequently characterised the selective application of the margin-versus-deletion test as an inconsistent basis for seeking to invalidate election results.

Voter list fault no ground to set aside election

In its preliminary submissions, the Commission cited Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which provides that an election to Parliament or a State Legislature can be called into question only through an election petition presented in the manner prescribed by law. It also relied on Supreme Court precedents concerning challenges to elections and electoral rolls.

The Commission submitted that settled law recognises that an election cannot be called into question on the basis of a defect in the electoral roll and that an election challenge must be pursued through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.

The affidavit also points out that election petitions have already been filed in respect of two of the constituencies covered by the present application, namely Pandabeswar and Rajarhat New Town.  

The ECI's reply was filed in response to O'Brien's application seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the results in 31 West Bengal Assembly constituencies be set aside and fresh polling be conducted on the basis of the revised and final electoral rolls.  

While hearing the application last month, the Supreme Court had asked if it could direct fresh elections.

 Case : Derek O Brien v Election Commission of India | IA No. 171298/2026 in WP(c) 737/2025

Also Read - West Bengal SIR | 80% Appeals In Tribunals Challenge Voter Inclusion; Appeals Against Exclusion Need Priority, Supreme Court Told

West Bengal SIR | 37 Lakh Appeals Pending; Less Than 3% Disposed By Appellate Tribunals : ECI Tells Supreme Court

West Bengal SIR | Of 38 Lakh Appeals, 22 Lakh Filed By Excluded Voters : ECI To Supreme Court