West Bengal Voter Roll Row: Justice Joymalya Bagchi Flags Risk to Electoral Integrity, Calls for ‘Robust Appellate Mechanism’

In a development that sharpens the focus on electoral integrity ahead of the West Bengal Assembly elections, Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Monday (April 13) raised serious concerns over the potential impact of voter exclusions arising from the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Hearing a writ petition from individuals whose appeals against deletion from electoral rolls remain pending, the bench—also comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant—underscored a critical question: what happens if the number of excluded voters exceeds or significantly affects the eventual margin of victory?

Justice Bagchi articulated the concern in stark terms,“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.”

The observation, while hypothetical, highlights a structural vulnerability in the electoral process—one where administrative exclusions could cast a shadow over the legitimacy of electoral outcomes. The court stopped short of drawing conclusions but made it clear that such a scenario would warrant close judicial scrutiny.

A central pillar of Justice Bagchi’s intervention was the urgent need for a more effective grievance redressal framework. Emphasising the fallibility inherent in large-scale administrative exercises, he noted,“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.”

The remarks come amid concerns that West Bengal’s SIR process has introduced a new category—‘Logical Discrepancy’—which, according to the bench, marks a deviation from procedures followed in other states. Such departures raise questions about uniformity and transparency in electoral roll revisions.

At a deeper level, the court’s observations went beyond procedure to touch upon the democratic ethos itself. Stressing the intrinsic value of enfranchisement, 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.”

As the case continues, the spotlight remains firmly on the ECI’s processes and the safeguards available to citizens whose names have been struck off voter lists. With elections looming, the court’s remarks serve as a pointed reminder: the credibility of a democracy rests not just on conducting elections, but on ensuring that every eligible voter has a fair chance to participate.