The Supreme Court on Monday disagreed with the West Bengal government, which had asked the apex court to wait a few more days before freezing the voter list, so that many of the more than 20 million voters who failed to convince court officials that their data provided under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list did not have a chance to vote in the April 23 and April 29 elections.
In the gheraoing of judicial officials in the state’s Malda district on April 1, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, and Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading the Bench, said the incident was not an emotional outburst but a “well-planned, calculated and deeply motivated” move. The court ordered the National Investigation Agency to take over the investigation of the case.
Also Read: Highlights of West Bengal SIR hearing on April 6, 2026
In a related hearing, the court recalled the Chief Secretary of West Bengal, who found himself in solitary confinement despite repeated requests for help from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on April 1. The Chief Secretary along with the Director General of Police appeared online and apologized to the court. “Lower yourself a little so that common minions like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can access you,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi told the two officials.
Chief Justice Kant said the bureaucracy derived its stubbornness from being “coddled”.
The hearing began with senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for West Bengal, saying that there were long winding queues in the state of voters who could not pass verification by court officials and remained excluded from the electoral roll.
Mr Divan said the 19 appeals tribunals should be asked to deal with the appeals by April 15. The final supplementary voter list, including the names of voters who won their appeals, could be released on April 18, five days before April 23, the first election date.
Voters whose appeals could not be decided by April 15 could be entered in the voter list. Freezing the electoral rolls on April 6, the last date for filing nominations for the first phase, would deprive millions of people of the right to vote and would mean ignoring the appeals process, he added. “Appeals are a continuation of the decision-making process and no voter should be disenfranchised. These are mapped voters. They voted in the 2002 election,” Mr Divan said.
However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the court hearing could not be “compressed”. It was a matter of principles of natural justice and the hearing of the appeal cannot be rushed to fit the pre-fixed deadline of April 15 as suggested by the state.
The court said the issue of logical inconsistencies was “peculiar” to West Bengal, prompting the apex court to deploy judicial officers to verify the objections. The court noted that out of more than 60 million objections, 59.15 million were disposed of by court officials.
Senior advocate Dama Seshadiri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, said the verification of all objections would be completed by April 6 night and the supplementary list would be published.
“Due to the enormous efforts of the judicial officers, we have achieved closure of 60 thousand objections questioning the logical contradictions. Now we have to draw a line and freeze the voter list. The aggrieved could appeal. The appellate tribunals would formulate their own procedure based on the principles of natural justice and the final order could be passed in a month or 6 days. is there so much pressure on them,” asked Justice Bagchi.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that the number of appeals could cross millions in the next few days. “Everyone would like to see their case decided as soon as possible. Nineteen tribunals ending by April 15 would only create chaos,” he said.
The Supreme Court left it to the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to form a committee to lay down the procedure for the functioning of the 19 tribunals. The Bench ordered the tribunals to start functioning immediately.
Referring to the problem of long queues outside appeal centers, Chief Justice Kant asked why people cannot file appeals online. “Online is cheaper than offline,” he said.
Published – 06 Apr 2026 20:28 IST
