'Reasons Must be Supplied for Every Inclusion/Exclusion': SC sets up 19 Appellate Tribunals in WB Voter Roll Revision

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ordered the establishment of 19 Appellate Tribunals to adjudicate disputes arising from the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls in West Bengal, while mandating that every affected individual must be given access to the recorded reasons for their inclusion or exclusion. Against the backdrop of a large-scale revision exercise involving lakhs of voters, the Court stepped in to ensure that the process remains transparent, accountable, and capable of enabling meaningful challenges to electoral decisions.

The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of a massive electoral verification drive involving crores of entries, where a substantial number of objections were filed concerning alleged discrepancies in voter records. Judicial officers were tasked with examining these objections at scale, leading to a rapid disposal of cases through an expanded judicial framework. However, concerns soon emerged regarding the opacity of the process, particularly the absence of clear, recorded reasons for inclusion or deletion of names, which left affected individuals without a meaningful basis to file appeals. Petitioners argued that without access to such reasons, the appellate mechanism would become illusory, while also raising apprehensions about procedural fairness and potential exclusion errors. On the other hand, the Election Commission maintained that adequate systems were in place and highlighted the scale and urgency of the exercise, especially in light of impending electoral timelines.

The Court placed decisive emphasis on transparency as the backbone of electoral adjudication. It observed, “whenever an appeal is filed… the reason shall be supplied to the person concerned,” making it clear that access to recorded reasons is not a procedural formality but a substantive right enabling effective challenge. The Bench acknowledged the enormity of the exercise, noting that judicial officers had already disposed of a substantial portion of objections at an unprecedented pace, supported by a dedicated infrastructure including a centralised hub with multiple chambers.

At the same time, it rejected objections regarding the orientation of tribunal members as “frivolous,” clarifying that such sessions were merely technical and did not affect judicial independence. The Court further directed that appellate bodies must be granted full access to records and function in accordance with principles of natural justice, cautioning against the acceptance of unverified fresh material. By balancing urgency with safeguards, the Court ensured that speed does not come at the cost of fairness in determining a citizen’s electoral status.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.