The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the introduction of a “logical inconsistency” category to identify only questionable voters in West Bengal’s Special Intensive Review (SIR) of electoral rolls, while underscoring the need for a “robust appeal mechanism” to redress the grievances of those excluded from voter rolls.
A total of six million voters were placed in this category after the draft list was published. Of these, 2.71 million voters were excluded after failing to address discrepancies.
Emphasizing the importance of the right to vote, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi observed that the right to vote is not just a constitutional right but one of the most powerful expressions of democratic and national participation, warning that exclusion from electoral rolls cannot be taken lightly.
“We need a strong appellate court… Somewhere, we are being blinded by the impending election. But the right to vote in the country you are born in is not just a constitutional right, it is an emotional right. This is one of the biggest expressions of nationalism that you find in a participatory democracy… This is something we need to see,” the bench told senior counsel DS Naidu, representing ECI.
The appeal process, implemented in accordance with previous directions of the Court, stipulates that persons excluded during the SIR can appeal their deletion first to judicial officers and then to dedicated appellate tribunals comprising former Chief Justices and senior judges of the High Courts.
The court was hearing a case relating to the functioning of appellate courts in West Bengal when it questioned the basis for creating the category of “logical inconsistency” during the SIR in West Bengal, pointing out that there was no such classification during the practice in Bihar. The court clearly highlighted what it saw as a departure from the earlier position of the Election Commission of India, particularly with regard to voters linked to the 2002 electoral register.
Under the SIR exercise, “logical inconsistencies” are classified into seven types, including cases of voters assigned to more than six offspring; Age gaps of less than 15 years with parents; Individuals over 45 years of age were missing from the 2002 lists; The lack of correspondence in the names of fathers between the 2002 and 2005 lists; Age gaps of less than 40 years with grandparents; Age gaps of more than 50 years with parents; And gender non-conformity with the 2002 list.
“Your original notification did not touch the 2002 list…however, your grounds for rejection now depend on it,” the bench said, recalling that in the Bihar SIR case, ECI had categorically maintained that people already on the 2002 list need not submit new documents.
When ECI tried to explain that these voters only needed to prove their identity through previous entries, the bench was harsh: “Now you are improvising the submissions you made earlier.”
The court rejected any suggestion that the scale of the practice could justify questionable methods. The report noted, “It does not mean justifying the end, but rather justifying the end. This is not a battle between the state and the election commission. This is not a blame game. It is about the voters being caught between two constitutional powers… and the court should not determine who is right and who is wrong.”
The ECI announced on April 10 that around nine million names were deleted from electoral rolls in West Bengal during the SIR. Of these, 2.71 million voters were removed after failing to adjudicate in the controversial “logical inconsistency” category. The SIR, which began in November 2025, saw 5.8 million names dropped from the draft list published on 16 December. Voters in 152 electoral districts for the first phase (April 23) who failed to decide in the semester cannot vote, as the lists were frozen on April 6. The voter list for the second phase was frozen on April 9. Bengal’s deletion rate of 11.6% ranks third highest among nine states, behind only Gujarat and India. Chhattisgarh.
Much of the court’s concern on Monday stemmed from the sheer scale and speed of the SIR process, with judicial officials reportedly adjudicating thousands of cases under tight timelines. “Each court now has more than a thousand appeals to hear. Our judicial staff had to review thousands of documents. If they achieved a 70% accuracy rate, I would rate it as excellent. This is the kind of pressure our judicial staff has worked on, and the margin for error will be there. We need a strong appeals court,” he added.
The panel also stressed that appellate courts should not act as mechanical reviewers, but rather as institutions guided by “principles of inclusion,” ensuring that legitimate voters are not excluded due to procedural lapses or administrative pressures.
Although the court raised serious concerns, it stressed that interference in the election results would remain limited and depend on demonstrable influence. The report indicated that if the exceptions are large enough to affect the election results, especially when the margin of victory is narrow, the courts may be forced to intervene. At the same time, she made clear that such thresholds would be applied with caution, reinforcing the principle of minimal judicial interference in electoral processes.
The court was dealing with appeals submitted by individuals whose appeals against removal from voter lists are still pending before the courts of appeal. They sought an extension to the date on which electoral rolls were frozen so they could vote if their appeals were allowed. The court refused to accept the request and ordered the petitioners to pursue remedies before the designated courts. But the court left the door open to relief, explaining that if the appeals are successful, “the necessary consequences will follow.”
