Bengal SIR Hearing: Supreme Court Allows the Inclusion of New Documents by Appellate Tribunal

The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted appellate tribunals hearing disputes in West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls to consider fresh documents, provided their authenticity is duly verified, modifying its earlier position that had barred such submissions.

Clarifying its revised stance, the Bench said, “The Appellate Tribunal will not entertain fresh documents without verifying the genuineness of such documents,” after petitioners raised concerns over procedural limitations.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, who were informed that 19 appellate tribunals, headed by former High Court Chief Justices and judges, have already been notified by the Election Commission of India. The tribunals will function from the Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee National Institution of Water and Sanitation in Kolkata.

The court was also apprised that nearly 47 lakh of the 60 lakh claims and objections have been decided so far. Judicial officers, currently disposing of close to 2 lakh cases daily, are expected to complete the process by April 7, as conveyed by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.

The Bench noted that these judicial officers were deployed following earlier directions issued in February, when the court intervened amid a disagreement between the Election Commission and the State government over the deputation of officials. Subsequently, the court ordered the creation of appellate tribunals to hear challenges arising from the exercise.

The Supreme Court stressed that appellate tribunals must have access to the reasoning recorded by adjudicating officers and that such reasons should be shared with affected parties. Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted the importance of transparency in the process, noting that the system already records such reasoning. “The architecture of the software provides for a field for remarks, which are reasons given by the officers concerned while deciding whether the logical discrepancy was justified and therefore deletion was warranted or it was not justified and therefore inclusion is directed,” he said.

He added that these reasons must be communicated whenever an appeal is filed. “In such cases, whenever an appeal is filed by an aggrieved person… the reason shall be supplied to the person concerned,” he observed.

The Bench also underlined that the tribunals have the authority to correct both wrongful exclusions and incorrect inclusions. “Even if a person is excluded today, and is unable to vote in this particular election, but that exclusion appears to be unjustified to a Tribunal… we see no reason why the decision can be altered and he can be included,” Justice Bagchi said.

He further noted that the process must be carried through comprehensively: “Likewise, a person incorrectly included… we see no reason why the entire cleaning exercise… should not be taken to its logical conclusion.”

During the proceedings, petitioners flagged concerns regarding large numbers of Form 6 applications, used for fresh voter registration, being filed in bulk. The court, however, indicated that it could not act solely on oral submissions without supporting material on record. The Bench also orally observed that individuals added to the electoral rolls after the qualifying date fixed by the Election Commission would not be entitled to vote in the upcoming election.

Senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Menaka Guruswamy, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Kalyan Bandhopadhyaya and Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, appeared for the petitioners, while Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu represented the Election Commission.

The petitions before the court, including one filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, challenge aspects of the SIR process, including the categorisation of certain voters under the “logical discrepancy” list.

On a previous date of hearing, the Chief Justice had observed that while the SIR exercise had largely proceeded smoothly across the country, West Bengal remained an exception. He remarked that despite similar complexities elsewhere, “by and large” the process had been carried out without major issues in other States. The Bench also indicated that administrative oversight of logistical arrangements had been entrusted to the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, while advising parties to approach the court with specific grievances if they persist.​