The Supreme Court has ordered that persons cleared by appellate tribunals for inclusion in electoral rolls at least two days before polling will be entitled to vote in the upcoming West Bengal assembly elections, significantly relaxing the earlier freeze on voter lists and offering relief to many caught in the ongoing special intensive revision exercise.
Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to give effect to appellate orders by issuing supplementary revised electoral rolls ahead of polling dates.
It noted that the state goes to polls in two phases -on April 23 and 29 -- and therefore, it is imperative that those declared eligible to vote by the appellate tribunals must exercise their adult franchise in the upcoming polls.
“We, therefore, invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct the ECI that, wherever the appellate tribunals are able to decide the appeals by 21.04.2026 or 27.04.2026, as the case may be, such appellate orders shall be given effect to by issuing a supplementary revised electoral roll, and all necessary consequences with respect to the right to vote shall follow,” it ordered.
The order, released on Thursday following the last hearing on April 13, marks a calibrated shift from the court’s earlier stance that people whose appeals remained pending could not be permitted to vote, as that would disrupt the integrity of the electoral process.
{{/usCountry}}The order, released on Thursday following the last hearing on April 13, marks a calibrated shift from the court’s earlier stance that people whose appeals remained pending could not be permitted to vote, as that would disrupt the integrity of the electoral process.
{{/usCountry}}Under the directions, appellate tribunals must decide appeals by April 21 for the first phase of polling on April 23, and by April 27 for the second phase scheduled on April 29. If an appeal is allowed within this window, the voter’s name must be restored through a supplementary roll, enabling them to cast their vote.
The development assumes significance because electoral rolls for the first and second phases were frozen on April 6 and April 9, respectively, effectively disqualifying those whose claims were not adjudicated in time. At the time, the tribunals were barely functional and had cleared just two names.
The court’s intervention now creates a narrow but crucial window for inclusion.
At the same time, the bench made it clear that mere pendency of an appeal would not entitle a person to vote. “The mere pendency of appeals… shall not entitle them to exercise their right to vote,” the court said, reiterating its concern that allowing such claims would create an “anomalous situation” and reopen the entire exercise.
The order came in a batch of petitions challenging SIR in West Bengal, an unprecedented exercise that saw judicial officers adjudicate over six million claims and objections -- all flagged by ECI under a controversial logical discrepancy category -- in a compressed timeline. The court noted that the verification exercise, conducted by a “neutral body” of judicial officers, displaced the earlier presumption of correctness attached to voter entries.
To address concerns of wrongful exclusion, the court had earlier created a two-tier appellate mechanism. Persons excluded from the rolls could first approach judicial officers and thereafter appellate tribunals comprising former chief justices and senior high court judges.
The court recorded that over 3.4 million appeals have already been filed before these tribunals, not only by excluded voters but also by objectors challenging inclusion of others.
It also took note of the elaborate institutional framework put in place for the appellate process, including a standard operating procedure formulated by a committee of former judges and the setting up of a dedicated portal for filing and adjudication of appeals.
Notably, the bench emphasised that appellate tribunals would revisit the entire record, including reasons recorded by judicial officers, and provide a fair hearing before arriving at a final determination.
Balancing competing concerns of electoral integrity and individual franchise, the court underlined that its directions were aimed at ensuring that “conclusive” determinations on voter eligibility are not rendered meaningless merely because of procedural timelines.
Simultaneously, it cautioned that permitting undecided claims to translate into voting rights would effectively undo the entire verification exercise and lead to chaos, with even objectors seeking exclusion of those already on the rolls.
The court also placed on record its appreciation for the “herculean task” performed by judicial officers from West Bengal, Jharkhand and Odisha in completing the massive verification exercise within a short period.
The matter will now be taken up again on April 24, even as the electoral process continues under the revised framework laid down by the top court.
.