Supreme Court Refuses Interim Voting Rights for Deleted Bengal Voters Pending Appeals

The Supreme Court has refused to grant interim voting rights to people whose names were removed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll and whose appeals remain pending before appellate tribunals.

During the hearing, Trinamool Congress leader Kalyan Banerjee said at least 1.6 million appeals had been filed and urged that those affected be allowed to vote in the two-phase Assembly election later this month.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant rejected the request, saying it was “entirely out of the question”. He added that permitting this would require suspending the voting rights of others involved.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that 3.4 million appeals had arisen from the SIR exercise, citing a report submitted by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.

The Election Commission of India has already frozen the West Bengal electoral roll, meaning no new names can be added before the election unless directed by the Supreme Court. No such order was made.

Nineteen appellate tribunals have been established in the state to decide the fate of 2.7 million deleted entries.

The ruling followed a petition by 13 individuals challenging the removal of their names from the voter list. The Court described the plea as premature and directed them to pursue their cases before the tribunals.

In its order, the bench said that as the petitioners, led by Quaraisha Yeasmin, had already approached the tribunals, their concerns were premature. It also clarified that it had expressed no view on the merits of the case.

The petitioners alleged that the Election Commission had removed names without due process and that appeals were not being heard promptly.

Appearing for the Commission, senior advocate DS Naidu said around 3 to 3.4 million appeals were pending.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Commission had failed to issue proper orders before the relevant authorities and said the deadline for freezing the rolls should be extended. They also questioned whether the appeals would be decided within a fixed timeframe.

Justice Bagchi stressed the importance of voting rights, saying the right to vote in one’s country is not only constitutional but also deeply connected to democratic participation.

However, he added that tribunals staffed by former judges should not be overburdened by rigid deadlines. Due process, he said, must be protected, and voters should not be caught between two constitutional authorities.