TMC Claims SIR Deletions Exceeded BJP Victory Margins in 31 Bengal Seats; Supreme Court Responds

The Trinamool Congress (TMC) on Monday placed before the Supreme Court that the deletion of voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls may have directly influenced the outcome of the West Bengal Assembly elections in several constituencies won by the BJP.

Appearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, senior advocate and TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee argued that in at least 31 Assembly seats, the BJP’s victory margin was lower than the number of voters removed from the rolls under the controversial adjudication process linked to the SIR exercise.

According to submissions made by the TMC, there were constituencies where the difference between the BJP’s winning margin and the number of deleted voters was “almost identical”, raising questions about whether the revision exercise materially affected electoral outcomes. Kalyan Banerjee cited one constituency where a TMC candidate allegedly lost by just 862 votes, while more than 5,400 names had been removed from the electoral rolls pending adjudication.

The TMC also argued that the scale of unresolved appeals remained massive. The party told the court that nearly 35 lakh appeals against voter deletions were still pending before appellate tribunals, while the overall vote gap between the BJP and the TMC across the state stood at around 32 lakh votes.

The submissions came during an ongoing legal challenge surrounding the Special Intensive Revision process conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the Bengal polls.

The SIR exercise, launched in West Bengal in November 2025, resulted in the deletion of nearly 90 lakh names from electoral rolls, according to figures previously disclosed by the ECI. Of these, around 27 lakh names were reportedly removed under a category termed “logical discrepancy”, which included mismatches relating to names, age gaps with parents or grandparents, family details and other documentation issues.

The category had earlier come under judicial scrutiny, with the Supreme Court noting that the “logical discrepancy” provision was introduced specifically for West Bengal and had not been used during similar electoral roll revisions in Bihar.

During Monday’s hearing, Kalyan Banerjee referred to an earlier observation made by Justice Bagchi before the elections, where the judge had indicated that a close election result combined with large-scale voter deletions could warrant judicial examination. “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,” Justice Bagchi had observed during an earlier hearing in April.

The Election Commission opposed the TMC’s arguments and maintained that disputes regarding election outcomes should be addressed through election petitions rather than through the present proceedings. Counsel appearing for the ECI argued that the poll panel could be held accountable through established legal mechanisms concerning voter addition and deletion disputes.

The Supreme Court, however, did not dismiss the TMC’s submissions outright and indicated that the party could place detailed material before the court through a fresh application. “Whatever you want to say about results… which may have materially affected because of deletions which are under adjudication… that requires an independent Interlocutory Application (IA),” Justice Bagchi said during the hearing.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the TMC, expressed concern over the pace at which appeals against voter deletions were being handled. She told the bench that, at the current rate, it could take nearly four years for tribunals to dispose of the pending 35 lakh appeals.

Responding to the concern, the Chief Justice said the court’s immediate priority would be ensuring that the appeals process moved more quickly. “We indicated to you… subsequent event: you are at liberty to file an IA. Mr Naidu’s objection will come as a counter. We will look into it and pass the order. On pendency of appeals — report from Hon’ble CJ required… to take stock in what timeline they can be resolved,” Justice Bagchi observed.

The controversy surrounding the SIR process has remained politically sensitive in West Bengal ever since the BJP argued that the revision exercise was necessary to identify alleged “infiltrators” and remove illegal immigrants from voter rolls. The TMC and opposition parties, however, repeatedly accused the ECI of carrying out arbitrary deletions that disproportionately affected minorities and economically weaker sections.

The Supreme Court had earlier expressed concern over both the scale of deletions and the timing of adjudication, especially as many appeals remained unresolved close to polling dates. “Somewhere we are getting blinded due to the impending elections,” Justice Bagchi had remarked during an earlier hearing.

The BJP eventually secured victory in the Assembly elections, ending the TMC’s 15-year tenure in power under Mamata Banerjee, with Suvendu Adhikari taking oath as Chief Minister last week. The Supreme Court has now permitted Mamata Banerjee and other petitioners to file fresh applications detailing their claims. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.