On June 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of India orally stated that the removal of a person’s name from the electoral roll following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise does not automatically result in the loss of their citizenship status. The Apex Court issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the West Bengal government regarding a plea that challenged the use of SIR data to deny various welfare benefits to affected individuals. The proceedings took place before a three-judge bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
The bench was conducting a hearing on a writ petition filed by Prasenjit Bose. Bose is the chairperson of the SIR committee of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee. His petition sought various directions and reliefs intended to streamline the hearing processes within the appellate tribunals. These tribunals were specifically constituted to adjudicate the appeals of individuals who have been excluded from the electoral rolls during the SIR exercise.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court pointed out that the ultimate authority to decide the citizenship status of a person in India does not rest with the Election Commission of India. The bench observed that the Election Commission cannot determine whether a person is a citizen of India or not. The court noted that it had previously communicated to the Election Commission that the list of people whose citizenship credentials are doubtful must be forwarded to the Union government, as the central government is the competent authority to determine matters of citizenship.
Constitutional boundaries and the Election Commission’s role
The proceedings placed a significant focus on the constitutional authority of the Election Commission of India. Justice Bagchi highlighted the Supreme Court’s prior judgment concerning the Bihar SIR process. In that judgment, the court had clarified the jurisdictional limits of the Election Commission.
Justice Bagchi orally noted that the Election Commission is not a constitutional authority with the power to adjudicate citizenship status under the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Specifically, the court referred to Articles 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Constitution. Articles 9, 10, and 11 deal directly with the loss, continuance, and regulation of Indian citizenship. Article 12 defines the term “State” for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights.
The court reiterated that while the Election Commission holds the constitutional authority to remove names from the electoral roll if a person’s citizenship is considered doubtful, this administrative action regarding voter eligibility does not amount to a legal determination of citizenship.
As reported in LiveLaw, Justice Bagchi stated, “Our judgment is clear – ECI is not a constitutional authority with regard to status under Art 9, 10, 11 and 12…ECI has control over rolls. It can decide not to include someone. However, that does not result in loss of status of citizenship per se. Therefore, we have given corresponding duty.”
The bench further detailed the procedural duty of the Election Commission. Once an individual is removed from the electoral roll due to doubtful citizenship, the Election Commission is obligated to submit an application to the central government so that their citizenship status can be formally determined.
According to LiveLaw, Justice Bagchi said, “We are conscious of this. In our Bihar SIR judgment, we made clear that ECI has a corresponding duty that as soon as there is a decision, it has to refer to the Ministry for adjudication under Citizenship Act. Unless that is done, status must go on”.
The scale of the appellate backlog in West Bengal
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared on behalf of the petitioner during the hearing. He presented statistical data to the bench regarding the massive backlog of appeals currently pending before the appellate tribunals in West Bengal.
Sankaranarayanan submitted that approximately 34 lakh appeals remain pending adjudication. These appeals have been filed by individuals whose names were removed from the electoral rolls during the SIR exercise. He pointed out that there are currently 19 appellate tribunals assigned to handle these cases. However, he informed the court that two judges from these tribunals have resigned, further impacting the capacity to clear the backlog.
The senior advocate highlighted that only a very small fraction of the total appeals has been decided thus far. According to the data presented, around 38,000 appeals have been disposed of by the tribunals. Sankaranarayanan noted that the track record of these decided cases shows that at least 70 percent of the appeals have been allowed, resulting in the restoration of the appellants’ names to the electoral rolls.
Denial of welfare benefits and civil rights
The core grievance raised in the petition relates to the consequences faced by individuals while their appeals remain pending before the tribunals. Sankaranarayanan argued that the West Bengal government has linked the deletion of names from the electoral roll with the denial of essential welfare benefits.
The senior counsel submitted that the state government issued notifications in May and June directing the deletion of beneficiaries from various welfare schemes based entirely on the SIR exercise data. He highlighted that affected persons are being denied benefits under the Public Distribution System (PDS), which is crucial for food security. Additionally, welfare measures such as the Annapurna Yojana are being withdrawn from those whose names have been deleted from the voter lists.
The deprivation extends beyond welfare schemes. Sankaranarayanan informed the bench that even caste certificates are being denied to these individuals. The government notifications reportedly called for the re-verification of caste certificates belonging to persons excluded from the electoral rolls.
Sankaranarayanan emphasised that these individuals are facing severe hardships at the ground level due to the ongoing denial of citizenship benefits. He argued that the possession of a valid passport should be considered sufficient proof of citizenship. As reported by LiveLaw, he contended that if someone has a passport, “it should be a clear pass”.
The counsel’s argument on unanticipated consequences
Sankaranarayanan argued that the widespread withdrawal of welfare schemes and civil rights was an unanticipated consequence of the SIR exercise and the subsequent deletion of names. He suggested that neither the litigants nor the court had foreseen that the state government would utilise the electoral roll data to deny basic amenities to residents.
According to LiveLaw, Sankaranarayanan submitted to the bench, “I think to be fair, I don’t think either they disclosed or we apprehended at all that all these other welfare schemes which are available to people who reside here would also be withdrawn. I don’t think that was apprehended by your lordships because then I presume your lordships could add one sentence saying, while it’s being adjudicated, please don’t take other civil rights which are available to citizens.”
He elaborated on the sheer volume of people affected by this situation. With only 38,000 cases decided out of 34 lakh appeals, a massive population remains in a state of uncertainty.
Sankaranarayanan stated, “What I’m explaining is this: that after 34 lakh appeals that are pending, if only 38,000 have been disposed of, there are 33 and a half lakh that are still pending. Now, those 33 and a half lakh have all these things being withdrawn from them, while their appeals are pending, where at least the track record shows 70% of the appeals have been allowed…That deprivation will continue until the appeals are heard. So we are only suggesting mechanisms to try and ensure some transparency and accountability, and to assist those 19 tribunals,”.
Transparency and accountability demands for appellate tribunals
The writ petition, filed on July 8 detailed a series of requests aimed at making the appellate process more transparent, accountable, and accessible for the affected electors. The petition asserted that the current mechanisms lack publicly available guidelines, which disproportionately affects poor, rural, and marginalised electors who struggle to navigate the system.
The petitioner sought directions to the ECI and other relevant authorities to formulate and publish a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to govern the appellate process. Specifically, the plea requested a direction to the Union of India and the Election Commission to place the SOP framed on April 7, 2026, by a three-member judicial committee in the public domain. This SOP was previously referred to in a Supreme Court order dated April 13, 2026.
To ensure regular monitoring and public awareness, the petition also called for the publication of regular bulletins that would indicate the exact number of appeals heard and decided by the appellate tribunals.
Proposed reforms to the appeal mechanism
In addition to transparency measures, the petition sought concrete reforms to streamline the appeal mechanism and make it more elector-friendly. One of the key reliefs sought was a direction to permit appellants and their authorised representatives to appear before the appellate tribunals through video conferencing.
The petition also requested the court to mandate a strict timeline for serving hearing notices. It sought a direction ensuring that notices are served to the appellants at least seven days in advance of the hearing date. The plea requested that this service be conducted through both electronic means and physical service delivered by Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
To address the massive backlog, the petitioner prayed for a time-bound schedule for the disposal of all pending appeals before the next election takes place. The plea specifically requested that appeals originating from Municipal Corporation and Municipality areas receive priority in the hearing schedule.
To improve public awareness and accessibility, the petition sought a direction for the creation of a simplified, step-by-step guide explaining the appellate process. The plea requested that this guide be made available in Bangla, Hindi, and English languages.
Furthermore, the petition sought permission for electors whose names were deleted during any of the three stages of the SIR process—enumeration, claims and objections, and adjudication of logical discrepancy cases—to file appeals before the tribunals for the restoration of their names.
Greater disclosure of SIR data
The petition also demanded greater transparency in the overall SIR exercise through the public disclosure of relevant data. It sought directions to the respondents to disclose Assembly constituency-wise data regarding Form 6 applications, which are used for the inclusion of names, and Form 7 applications, which are used for objections and deletions.
The requested data includes the total number of applications submitted, admitted, and rejected during the claims and objections phase, as well as subsequent stages of the revision process.
Additionally, the petition called for the disclosure of the exact number of cases currently pending before the appellate tribunals in each Assembly constituency. It sought the breakdown of the number of appeals filed by deleted electors seeking restoration of their names, versus the number of appeals filed by the Election Commission seeking exclusion.
The plea also requested the publication of all data required under Formats 1 to 8 of the Election Commission of India Manual on Electoral Roll, 2024.
The Supreme Court bench acknowledged the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel. The bench observed that the issue regarding the speedy disposal of appeals could be raised before the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. However, the Supreme Court agreed to examine the substantive issues relating to the alleged use of SIR data by the state government for non-electoral purposes. Ultimately, the bench issued notice to the relevant authorities and re-listed the matter to be heard alongside other pleas challenging the West Bengal SIR exercise on August 25.
Related:
“Inside the SIR”: Booklet flags ‘mechanical disenfranchisement’ in electoral roll revision
VFD’s rebuttal of the Fadnavis’ Claims on Electoral Manipulation Allegations
Vote for Democracy (VFD) releases report on the conduct of General Election 2024
The Bihar Verdict 2025: How an election was engineered before votes were cast
The Stolen Franchise: Why the Election Commission cannot escape accountability