Bengal SIR appeals could take over 12 years, EC data shows

An Election Commission affidavit before the Supreme Court says appellate tribunals in West Bengal decided 1,26,194 Special Intensive Revision appeals in five months since mid-April, with 37,05,235 pending as of September 16 — a backlog that could take about 146 months, over 12 years, at the current rate. Of decided cases, 1,13,943 names were restored and 8,649 rejected. A pending appeal alone does not confer the right to vote.

Written by AI from News18 — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 27 Sept 2026, 11:09 am IST

Source

News18 — India · read the original report ↗

#sir#electoral rolls#election commission#supreme court#voting rights

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

37,05,235 appeals were pending before West Bengal appellate tribunals as of September 16, while 1,26,194 were decided in five months. — Figures appear in the source, attributed to an ECI affidavit before the Supreme Court; internally consistent.
At the current disposal rate the backlog could take about 146 months, or more than 12 years, to clear. — Presented in the source as a calculation based on the affidavit figures, not as an ECI statement.
Of the decided appeals, 1,13,943 names were restored and 8,649 appeals rejected. — Attributed to ECI figures; 1,13,943 plus 8,649 does not equal 1,26,194, a discrepancy present in the source.
ECI has asked the Supreme Court to raise the number of tribunals from 24 to 42 and allow judicial officers to work from home. — Attributed to the Election Commission in the source; no order confirmed.
Delay leaving an eligible voter unable to vote in even one election would violate Articles 14 and 21. — Explicitly an opinion attributed to Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Jatin Bhardwaj, quoted in the source.

Written by AI from News18 — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

This is not a story about paperwork — it is a story about who holds power over the rolls. With more than 37 lakh appeals pending and the Election Commission itself telling the Supreme Court that the current pace could take over 12 years, the Bengal SIR dispute becomes a ready-made political weapon for the opposition. The fact that a pending appeal does not by itself restore the right to vote gives that argument its sharpest edge: affected voters could miss an election entirely.

Of the appeals decided so far, 1,13,943 names were restored against 8,649 rejections — a ratio the opposition is likely to cite as evidence that exclusions were excessive.
Yet of the 38.31 lakh appeals filed, 16.10 lakh challenged inclusions rather than deletions, showing the roll fight is contested from both directions, not a one-sided grievance.
The ECI's own request to raise tribunals from 24 to 42 is an admission that existing capacity is inadequate, which pushes institutional capability itself into the political argument.
Advocate Jatin Bhardwaj's contention that such delay raises Article 14 and 21 concerns signals an attempt to shift the dispute from party politics to constitutional rights ground.
With Karnataka at a different stage of the same SIR process, the issue can scale from a state-specific grievance into a national political theme.

What to watch — Watch what the Supreme Court orders on expanding tribunals and on supplementary rolls — that will decide whether this is contained in court or becomes campaign material.

The story does not establish what share of the 37 lakh pending appeals will ultimately succeed, or which party gained or lost from the deletions; the outcome ratio in decided cases cannot be projected onto the rest.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has thrown up a remedy problem: voters whose names are excluded must appeal before appellate tribunals, but disposal is far slower than filing. An ECI affidavit before the Supreme Court shows West Bengal's 24 tribunals have decided only a fraction of the appeals filed, leaving over 37 lakh pending. Karnataka is at an earlier stage of the same process, with over a crore electors categorised under ASDDO heads and lakhs facing notices. The core legal question is whether a pending appeal allows a person to vote — and the source says it does not.

Key facts

West Bengal appellate tribunals decided 1,26,194 SIR appeals in the five months since they began functioning in mid-April, per an ECI affidavit to the Supreme Court.
37,05,235 appeals were pending as of September 16; at the present disposal rate clearing the backlog could take around 146 months, over 12 years.
Of the 1,26,194 decided appeals, 1,13,943 names were restored and 8,649 appeals were rejected.
A total of 38,31,429 appeals had been filed: 22,21,118 seeking restoration of excluded or deleted names and 16,10,311 challenging inclusion of names.
ECI has conceded that existing infrastructure and the 24 appellate tribunals in West Bengal are insufficient, and asked the Supreme Court to allow an increase to 42 — matching the state's parliamentary constituencies.
ECI has also sought permission for judicial officers to work from home to cut travel time and speed up disposal.
In Karnataka, the draft roll categorised 1.08 crore electors under ASDDO heads (absent, shifted, dead, duplicate, others); about 43.8 lakh voters were expected to get notices over logical discrepancies or no match with the 2002 roll.
Karnataka's final electoral roll is scheduled for October 27, with October 12 cited as the deadline for voters to clear their names.

Timeline

Mid-AprilWest Bengal SIR appellate tribunals begin functioning.
September 16As per ECI affidavit, 37,05,235 appeals pending; 1,26,194 decided in the preceding five months.
October 12Deadline cited for Karnataka voters to clear their names in the SIR process.
October 27Karnataka's final electoral roll scheduled for publication.
April 13, 2026Supreme Court order referred to by advocate Jatin Bhardwaj as governing whether excluded voters with pending appeals can vote.

Who has a stake

Excluded voters in West Bengal — Over 37 lakh with pending appeals cannot vote while their names remain off the roll, and may miss elections even if their appeals eventually succeed.
Election Commission of India — Must defend the SIR process in the Supreme Court, admits tribunal capacity is inadequate and seeks more tribunals and work-from-home for judicial officers.
Appellate tribunals in West Bengal — 24 tribunals face a backlog that, at current rates, would take about 146 months to clear; ECI wants the number raised to 42.
Supreme Court — Hearing the West Bengal SIR matter; its orders provided for supplementary lists where verification was incomplete and distinguish allowed appeals from pending ones.
Karnataka electors — 1.08 crore categorised under ASDDO; around 43.8 lakh face notices requiring documents and hearings before the October 27 final roll.
Jatin Bhardwaj, Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record — Argues that delay denying even one election to an illegally excluded voter would be manifestly arbitrary under Articles 14 and 21.

Why it matters

The right to vote is exercised on a fixed date; a remedy that arrives years later cannot restore a lost vote, since a voter cannot cast a ballot retrospectively. With more than 37 lakh appeals pending in West Bengal alone and a projected 12-year clearance horizon, the gap between exclusion and redress could silence eligible voters across multiple elections. That turns an administrative backlog into a constitutional question under Articles 14 and 21.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

SIR — Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission of India.
West Bengal SIR appeals: 38,31,429 filed; 1,26,194 decided; 37,05,235 pending as of September 16.
ECI seeks to raise West Bengal appellate tribunals from 24 to 42, matching the state's 42 parliamentary constituencies.
ASDDO categories in Karnataka's draft roll: absent, shifted, dead, duplicate and others; 1.08 crore electors so categorised.
Karnataka final electoral roll date: October 27; deadline to clear names cited as October 12.
A pending appeal does not by itself confer the right to vote; the name stays off the roll unless a court or election authority grants interim relief.

Mains framing

The West Bengal SIR appeals data expose a structural mismatch between the scale of electoral-roll exclusions and the institutional capacity to remedy them: 38,31,429 appeals filed against 24 tribunals, with only 1,26,194 decided in five months and a backlog that at current rates would take some 146 months to clear. The causes lie in the sheer volume generated by an intensive revision, thin tribunal infrastructure and travel-heavy procedures — the ECI itself has sought 42 tribunals and work-from-home for judicial officers. The implications are constitutional rather than merely administrative: since the pendency of an appeal does not confer the right to vote, and 1,13,943 of 1,26,194 decided cases ended in restoration, a high success rate among decided appeals suggests many still-pending appellants are eligible voters who may nonetheless miss elections. As advocate Jatin Bhardwaj argues, delay that costs an illegally excluded voter even a single election could be manifestly arbitrary under Articles 14 and 21. The way forward suggested by the source is capacity expansion, faster tribunal SOPs, and use of supplementary electoral rolls where a claim is allowed before the polling deadline — with Karnataka's compressed timelines (notices to 43.8 lakh voters, final roll on October 27) showing the same pressure at an earlier stage.

Key terms

Special Intensive Revision (SIR): An intensive Election Commission exercise to revise electoral rolls, involving verification, deletions and inclusion claims.
Appellate tribunal (SIR): Forum where a voter can challenge deletion or exclusion from the roll, or object to another's inclusion; 24 currently function in West Bengal.
ASDDO categories: Classification of electors in Karnataka's draft roll as absent, shifted, dead, duplicate or others.
Supplementary electoral roll: Additional list in which the ECI can include a name if a tribunal allows the claim before the relevant polling deadline.
Article 14: Constitutional guarantee of equality before law; invoked here against arbitrary delay in deciding voter appeals.
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty; cited as engaged when delay effectively eclipses a voter's participation in elections.

Practice questions

Does a pending appeal against deletion from the electoral roll adequately protect a citizen's franchise? Examine with reference to the West Bengal SIR data and Articles 14 and 21.
Discuss the institutional capacity challenges before the Election Commission in conducting Special Intensive Revisions, using the West Bengal and Karnataka experiences.
"A remedy delayed in electoral matters is a remedy denied." Critically evaluate this statement in the context of electoral-roll revision and the right to vote.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyIndia Post invites applications for staff car driver posts →

← All stories