BENGAL’S VOTER-ROLL JUSTICE SYSTEM GRINDS TO A HALT AS 38 LAKH APPEALS SWAMP UNDERSTAFFED TRIBUNALS
October 11, 2026
More than 37 lakh voters in West Bengal remain caught in uncertainty over their electoral status, as vacancies across tribunals established to hear disputes arising from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls compound an already enormous backlog of appeals. Three of the 19 tribunals set up to adjudicate the disputes remain vacant, while only around 1.02 lakh cases have been disposed of out of a total of 38.3 lakh appeals filed.
The Election Commission is awaiting the names of retired Calcutta High Court judges to fill the three vacant positions. The High Court is expected to forward the names to the state’s chief electoral officer, who will subsequently notify the appointments. Until the vacancies are filled, the tribunal system faces additional constraints in processing disputes involving millions of voters.
The scale of the backlog has raised concerns about whether the affected individuals will be able to establish their electoral status in time for upcoming local and municipal elections. The tribunals were constituted on March 21 following directions from the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes arising from the SIR exercise, during which millions of voter names were deleted or challenged.
The figures submitted to the Supreme Court reveal the magnitude of the challenge. Of the 38.3 lakh appeals, approximately 22.2 lakh have been filed by voters whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls and who are challenging their exclusion. Another 16.1 lakh appeals concern disputed inclusions, adding to the workload of a system that has processed fewer than three per cent of the cases placed before it.
The pace of disposal has prompted serious concerns among petitioners. They have told the Supreme Court that, at the current rate, resolving the entire backlog could take more than 12 years. Such a prolonged timeline would leave the electoral status of millions of people unresolved for an extended period, potentially complicating their ability to participate in forthcoming elections.
The tribunals function under the administrative framework of the Calcutta High Court, while the Election Commission provides logistical support, including staff and a digital platform for online hearings. Despite these arrangements, the combination of the extraordinary number of appeals and vacant tribunal positions has placed considerable pressure on the dispute-resolution process.
The SIR exercise has also become a major political controversy in Bengal. Opposition parties have described the revision as an attack on democratic rights and accused the Election Commission of relying on algorithm-driven processes that disproportionately affect minority communities and traditional opposition strongholds. These allegations remain contested, while the large volume of appeals has intensified demands for a transparent and efficient review mechanism.
At the centre of the dispute is the question of how quickly voters can obtain a determination on whether their names should remain on, or be restored to, the electoral rolls. For people challenging deletion, a delayed decision creates uncertainty over their voting eligibility. Disputes concerning alleged improper inclusions also remain unresolved while the appeals await adjudication.
The tribunal vacancies have therefore emerged as an additional obstacle in a process already struggling to cope with millions of claims. Filling the unoccupied positions could expand the system’s capacity, but the sheer volume of pending cases means that appointments alone may not be enough to clear the backlog rapidly.
With local and municipal elections approaching, the unresolved appeals have placed the effectiveness of Bengal’s electoral dispute mechanism under increasing scrutiny. Unless the tribunals accelerate their work and the vacancies are filled, millions of voters could remain uncertain about their electoral status, prolonging a controversy that has become one of the state’s most consequential disputes over voting rights and electoral administration.
