The Election Commission of India has told the Supreme Court that the 16.10 lakh appeals challenging the inclusion of voters in West Bengal's electoral rolls were filed by officers of the state's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), acting as statutory authorities – and that these appeals were never placed before the Commission itself. The disclosure, made in a counter-affidavit filed on October 26, has turned a technical question about who signed the appeals into a wider fight over how decisions are taken inside the three-member poll body.
Background: what the West Bengal SIR is
West Bengal went through a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of its voter list, a door-to-door re-verification exercise that ran for roughly 15 months and ended with around 90 lakh names deleted. Because of the scale of objections, the Supreme Court stepped in, appointing judicial officers to decide claims and objections and later directing that appellate tribunals be set up to hear appeals.
According to data the Commission placed before the court in September, the SIR produced 38,31,429 appeals in total. Of these, 22,21,118 were filed by people whose names had been deleted and who wanted them restored. The remaining 16,10,311 were appeals against the inclusion of other voters – and it is this second set that is now under scrutiny.
Key details of the ECI affidavit
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition that challenges 14 alleged "unilateral" decisions connected with the SIR, said to have been taken in the name of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar despite objections from other Election Commissioners. The appeals against inclusions are cited as one of those decisions.
| Point | What the ECI told the Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Who filed the 16.10 lakh appeals | Officers of the West Bengal CEO's office, as authorities under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 |
| Were they placed before the Commission? | No, according to a CEO office communication dated October 22, 2026 |
| Legal basis claimed | Supreme Court orders of April 1 and April 6, 2026 in Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India |
| Decision-making power | Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the 2023 law on appointment of Election Commissioners |
| On dissent by Commissioners | Observations or queries by individual Commissioners during deliberations are not, by themselves, Commission decisions |
| On Form 6 | Denied amending it; said it was "rationalised" to match the format used in the Bihar SIR |
| View of the petition | Called it "misconceived" |
The affidavit was signed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of the Commission and its three members – CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The Commission also said the voters concerned had been eligible to vote in the April 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.
The Supreme Court orders the ECI is relying on
In its April 1 order, the court recorded the Commission's submission that the appellate tribunals would get access to records in appeals filed both by excluded voters and by ECI authorities challenging inclusions, and asked the tribunals to examine full records, including the judicial officers' reasons, while following natural justice. The April 6 order repeated those directions and said that people aggrieved by inclusions – including ECI authorities – could raise their objections before the tribunals.
The Commission's argument, in short, is that the court itself contemplated appeals by its officers, so the CEO's staff were within their rights to file them.
Why the question of authorisation matters
The petitioners see it differently. They point to an internal noting dated August 12, 2026, attributed to Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, which asked: "Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?" They want the court to call for the Commission's original files, including the records showing who authorised the appeals.
The petition also seeks a declaration that decisions vested in the Election Commission as a multi-member body cannot be taken by the CEC alone, and asks for the CEC to be suspended while the case is pending. On October 5, the Supreme Court issued notice on the petition but declined, at that stage, to suspend the CEC without first hearing the other side.
For ordinary voters in West Bengal, the stakes are practical. Every appeal against an inclusion is a potential challenge to someone's right to stay on the voter list, and more than 16 lakh such cases is a very large number for tribunals to process. How the court views the authority behind those appeals could decide whether they proceed as filed.
The political backdrop
The affidavit comes as the opposition has sharpened its attack on the Chief Election Commissioner. Leaders of the INDIA bloc held a rally at Delhi's Ramlila Maidan on November 1, targeting the CEC over the SIR process, and BJP and opposition leaders have since traded sharp barbs over it. The Commission maintains that its SIR decisions were unanimous and in line with the law.
What happens next
The petition will now be heard with the Commission's reply on record, and the petitioners are expected to respond to the affidavit. A date for the next hearing had not been widely reported at the time of writing. Separately, the appellate tribunals set up under the Supreme Court's directions continue to hear the lakhs of pending appeals – both from excluded voters and against inclusions.
Whatever the outcome, the case is likely to shape how future SIR exercises in other states are run, and how the three-member Commission records disagreements among its members.
Comments (0)