The Supreme Court of India on Monday rejected a plea seeking permission for nearly 27 lakh voters excluded from West Bengal’s electoral rolls to vote in the ongoing Assembly elections, pending adjudication of their appeals before appellate tribunals.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that granting such relief would create a legal imbalance, as it would also necessitate suspending the voting rights of around 7 lakh voters whose inclusion in the rolls has been challenged.
“This is entirely out of the question. If we allow them to vote, then the voting rights of those included will also have to be stopped,” the bench remarked during the hearing.
The court relied on a report submitted by Sujoy Paul, Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, which revealed that approximately 34.35 lakh appeals are pending before tribunals, including over 7 lakh cases challenging voter inclusion.
While refusing interim relief, the bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It noted that the petitioners had already approached appellate tribunals, making the plea premature.
However, the court flagged concerns over large-scale deletions of voters, particularly under the category of “logical discrepancies,” which was reportedly not applied during a similar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar last year.
Justice Bagchi questioned the inconsistency, noting that voters linked to earlier electoral rolls were automatically retained in Bihar, whereas similar cases in West Bengal were subjected to additional scrutiny. He stressed the importance of due process, observing that the right to vote is not only constitutional but also carries significant emotional value.
The bench also indicated that it may examine the broader implications if voter exclusions are found to have materially impacted election outcomes—particularly in cases where the number of excluded voters exceeds the margin of victory. In such scenarios, defeated candidates may challenge results through election petitions.
The court did not fix a definite date for the next hearing but indicated that the matter could be taken up again next week.
In its order, the bench stated: “Since the petitioners have already appealed before the appellate tribunals, the apprehensions expressed are premature. If the plea is allowed, necessary consequences will follow. We are not expressing any view on the merits of the case.”
