West Bengal SIR: 47 Lakh Objections Disposed of, Supreme Court Informed

TTI, Apr 01, 2026, New Delhi : Around 47 lakh out of the 60 lakh objections during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound West Bengal have been disposed of till March 31, the Supreme Court was informed on Wednesday.

“We have received a letter from the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice on Tuesday. We are happy about the facts and figures given… Out of 60 lakh, 47 lakh objections have been decided till last evening. By April 7, all objections will be decided,” a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said.

The Bench, which also included Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, added that the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice had informed it that around 1.75 lakh to 2 lakh objections were being dealt with every day and that by April 7, all objections would be resolved.

On behalf of the poll panel, senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu informed the Bench about the constitution of 19 appellate tribunals, headed by former high court judges, to deal with challenges to the exclusion of voters from electoral rolls during the ongoing SIR exercise conducted by judicial officers in the state. The tribunals will function from the Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee National Institution of Water and Sanitation, Kolkata, the EC counsel said.

The Bench emphasised that appellate tribunals must have access to the reasons recorded by adjudicating officers for excluding a voter from the electoral rolls, and that such reasons should be supplied to the affected parties.

“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 headed by a former Chief Justice, we see no reason why the decision cannot be altered and he can be included. And likewise, a person incorrectly included, and votes in this election, and your representative makes a report to the Tribunal, we see no reason why the entire cleaning exercise taken by you should not be taken to its logical conclusion,” the top court said.

The Election Commission also told the Bench that it has notified a circular regarding payment of honourarium and other related expenses for the tribunal heads.

The petitioners were represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Menaka Guruswamy, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, and others.

On behalf of the TMC, Bandyopadhyay raised the issue of alleged bulk submission of Form 6 applications by BJP workers for inclusion in electoral rolls.

“Supplementary lists are being published now. The recent EC notification… allows Form 6… but Form 6 cannot be allowed when adjudication is going on… now bundles of Form 6 coming… I am not blaming any political parties,” Bandyopadhyay said.

However, terming it as premature and hypothetical, CJI Kant said, “It happens every time… (it’s) not the first time. You can raise objections… We are not closing the case at all. We will see when the time comes,” he added.

Naidu clarified that Form 6 for inclusion of an eligible voter can be accepted until the last date of filing of nomination papers in a particular constituency.

The top court issued notice to the state government and the CBI on a petition filed by Sanatani Sansad regarding post-poll violence in West Bengal, alleging that many of the accused in cases registered after the 2021 assembly polls were roaming free.

The Bench posted petitions filed by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and others against the ongoing SIR exercise for further hearing on April 6.

On March 28, the Election Commission published the third supplementary voter list under the SIR of electoral rolls ahead of the 2026 assembly elections scheduled to be held on April 23 and April 29. The poll panel, however, did not provide details on the total number of deletions or inclusions in the third list, which follows the publication of the second supplementary list.

The commission had released the first supplementary list of ‘Under Adjudication’ voters on March 23 but remained tight-lipped on the number of deletions or the precise figure of cases disposed of on that list, drawing criticism from various quarters.