(The Quint has been at the forefront of exposing the discrepancies in the entire Special Intensive Revision process. Help us do more such stories by becoming a member.)
On 16 April, the Supreme Court of India, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142, directed the Election Commission of India to issue supplementary electoral rolls. This would allow voters cleared by SIR tribunals to cast their votes in the West Bengal Assembly polls. The Court ruled that those whose appeals are decided before April 21 and April 27 will be eligible to vote in the first and second phases, respectively.
Following the verdict, the Trinamool Congress claimed credit, stating that the case was initiated by Mamata Banerjee. On the other hand, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPIM) asserted that the ruling came as a result of their comrade Mostari Banu’s petition. As opposition parties spar over credit, many have begun questioning whether the ruling actually resolves the core issue.
After the voter list was frozen on April 6, a total of 9.066 million voters were deleted. As of April 11, around 3.4 million of them had filed appeals before tribunals.
The Math That Doesn’t Add Up
Imtiaz Ali, chief fact-checker of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, raised serious concerns about the feasibility of the process. He said: “The Supreme Court has clearly stated that tribunals must follow principles of natural justice. That means proper notice of hearing, full opportunity for the accused to present their case, and a reasoned order. If natural justice is followed, then even if 19 judges work for five hours a day, that amounts to 5,700 minutes daily.
At five minutes per case, only 1,140 cases can be heard per day. Even if tribunals start today, in the next five days only 5,700 cases can be resolved. That is just 0.17% of the total 34 lakh applicants. This is such a negligible number that it hardly counts. It appears to be a strategy to create false hope and keep people from protesting until voting concludes.”
For many, however, the issue is more basic—where are these tribunals? Moumita Alam, a writer and activist from Malbazar in North Bengal, said: “Seeing the celebration around the Supreme Court verdict, one thing is clear—most people have no real understanding of what is happening on the ground. My question is: do these tribunals even exist in practice?”
Rajendranath Bhattacharya (51), a cosmetologist from Sonarpur North constituency, said: “I went to the Baruipur DM office, but no one was accepting appeals. Central forces did not even allow entry. Officials said they did not know where appeals were being accepted. I then went to Alipore, but found no counters there either. There is no clear instruction anywhere. I have now given up.”
Actor Ankita Maji (38), a known face in Bengali web series and a recipient of the 2023 Natya Akademi Award, is among those whose names were deleted. She said: “The situation has been made extremely complicated. People like us, who work from morning to night, cannot keep visiting government offices. Elderly family members are being forced to go and are facing harassment. No one has any clarity. Political parties spend crores on advertisements during elections, but cannot clearly inform deleted voters where and how to apply.” She added that she managed to file her appeal online on April 18 with the help of advocate Reshma Khatun.
Advocate Reshma Khatun of the Calcutta High Court said: “Applications can be made both online and offline. However, it is unclear whether the offline process is progressing at all. Some online applications have been approved, which suggests movement. But those without Aadhaar-linked mobile numbers cannot apply online. Nothing is clear.”
Internet access adds another layer of concern. The average internet penetration is 67.54 per 100 people. In rural areas it is 45.12. This raises a critical question: if even educated urban voters in Kolkata are confused about the process, how are less-educated, economically weaker people in remote areas supposed to apply—either online or offline?
Activist of Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) advocate Rangta Munsi said: “There is no clarity on what documents deleted voters need to provide. Neither the voters nor the judges know. To resolve cases before the April 23 polling, each judge would need to dispose of 29,000 cases in a single day. No one knows why names were deleted or how reinstatement will be communicated. We are telling all deleted voters to go to polling booths and check if their names are back. This is turning into a farce.”
Finally, on 21 April—just two days before the first phase of polling on 23 April—the Election Commission announced that out of 9.1 million deleted voters, only 139 names had been restored to the electoral rolls.
At the same time, West Bengal’s Chief Electoral Officer Agarwal told the media that the tribunals were working in two directions: they were not only examining whether the names that had been deleted were removed correctly, but were also reviewing whether the names included in the voter list had been added properly. This means that even after the electoral rolls were frozen on 6 April, names already present on the list could still be deleted based on complaints, even just two days before voting.
This raises a serious question: if a voter’s name can be deleted just before polling day, what is the practical meaning of the tribunal process?
Tribunals in Theory, Not in Practice
For weeks, several activists in West Bengal have been demanding transparency regarding who is filing Form 7 complaints against whom, but the Election Commission has refused to disclose that information. Form 7 allows objections to be filed for deleting a voter’s name from the electoral roll. However, the law clearly states that one person cannot submit more than five Form 7 applications or raise objections against more than five individuals. False complaints are also prohibited.
Moreover, if someone files false Form 7 complaints or submits more than five such applications, both the complainant and the official accepting them are liable for FIRs under Sections 248, 230, 227, 229, 354, and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Kaushik Maity, organisational secretary of the Bengali nationalist organisation Bangla Pokkho, alleged that someone had filed an application with the Election Commission seeking deletion of a voter in the name of one of their leaders, Sunil Saha. Following this, both Kaushik Maity and Sunil Saha approached the Additional Chief Electoral Officer, who reportedly told them: “Anyone can file a complaint. Earlier, people hesitated to complain for fear that their identity would be revealed. This time, we are not disclosing the complainant’s identity. If someone has filed a false complaint, then file an FIR.”
Imtiaz has made a similar allegation. He said that after mass deletions through Form 7 in Sandeshkhali, he went to the BDO office seeking information about the complainants, but no details were provided. According to him, the Election OC clearly stated: “This time, there is an unwritten instruction from above to accept as many Form 7 applications as possible.”
Opacity, Exclusion, and Moving Goalposts
As a result, anonymous complaints continue to hang like a threat over voters whose names remain on the rolls—even until just two days before polling.
On 28 February, the voter list published by the Election Commission saw around 500,000 voters deleted, while 6 million were kept “under adjudication.” Subsequently, when the rolls were frozen on 6 April, about 45 percent of those under adjudication—roughly 2.7 million people—were removed, while the rest were reinstated in the voter list.
However, an exception remains in the case of Jasmine Khatun (22), a resident of Moyna Assembly constituency, who continues to be under adjudication. Jasmine said, “Since my name is still under adjudication, I cannot even approach the tribunal like those who have been deleted. I don’t know what to do.”
Speaking on her case, advocate Reshma said, “This is a unique situation. We can file a writ in the High Court, but it may not give much importance to the matter, saying that the issue is already being examined by the Supreme Court.”
Moumita Alam also warned that the rushed and unclear tribunal process could lead to a larger crisis. “If someone remains deleted even after this flawed process, what happens then? In my village, an Adivasi youth has already died by suicide after being labelled Bangladeshi because his name was removed,” she said.
At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental question: where is the opportunity for fair defence? Can justice exist without it? Due to administrative and judicial confusion, lakhs of deleted voters and their families remain anxious, with many recalling Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement in the Lok Sabha on December 10, 2025: “First we will detect, then delete, and then deport.”