The matter was heard by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant with Justice Joymalya Bagchi. During the hearing, the judges made clear that the court was unwilling to permit voting merely because an elector had previously appeared on the rolls or had challenged deletion. At the same time, the Bench signalled unease over the wider impact of large-scale exclusions, with Justice Bagchi warning that any major mismatch between narrow winning margins and a high rate of deletions could raise serious constitutional questions.
The immediate trigger for the hearing was the plea of voters whose appeals against exclusion are pending before newly created appellate tribunals. According to submissions recorded in court coverage, more than 34 lakh appeals have already been filed by people contesting their non-inclusion. Petitioners argued that many of those removed are genuine electors and that the delay in disposal could effectively disenfranchise them before polling begins. The court, however, held that those grievances must move through the statutory appeal route rather than be settled through a blanket interim order from the top court.
The revision exercise itself has become one of the defining flashpoints ahead of the election. The Election Commission has defended the Special Intensive Revision as a long-overdue clean-up of voter rolls, saying such exercises are rooted in law and are designed to remove duplication, deaths, migration-related distortions and wrongful entries, while preserving genuine electors. Material published by the Commission says SIR had been conducted several times between 1951 and 2004 and that the last comparable exercise took place more than two decades ago. That official case is built around administrative integrity: cleaner lists, fewer duplicates and a more defensible electoral register before voting.
Critics, however, say the scale of exclusions has made the process far more than a technical update. Political opponents of the exercise and civil society voices have argued that the burden of proving eligibility has fallen unevenly on poorer households, migrants, women, border-district residents and older voters who may struggle to produce matching records across documents. Public reporting has also highlighted individual cases involving long-time residents, public figures and elderly voters who say they were removed despite years of uninterrupted participation in elections. That has deepened fears that procedural cleansing, even if lawful in design, can produce real disenfranchisement when executed under electoral time pressure.
To address the fallout, 19 appellate tribunals were constituted in West Bengal following court intervention and recommendations linked to the Calcutta High Court. Those tribunals began functioning this week, though reports indicated that not all judges were present on the opening day. The tribunals are central to the court’s answer to the present crisis: not an extraordinary voting window, but a more structured review system meant to catch wrongful deletions before polling where possible. Even so, the numbers involved have fuelled concern that the remedy may prove too slow for many appellants.
What emerged from the hearing was a double message. On one side, the Supreme Court refused to blur the line between those currently on the roll and those still contesting exclusion, stressing that interim inclusion could overload the tribunal system and complicate the electoral process. On the other, the Bench did not dismiss the gravity of the issue. Its observations on due process, possible margin of error and the democratic weight of the franchise suggest the larger constitutional argument remains alive even after the denial of immediate relief.
Hormuz blockade draws legal rebuke 