Dozen Bengal Tribunal judges flag their EC portal: ‘Can’t serve notices, hold hearings or restore deleted voters’

Why in the News

The appeal route the Supreme Court built for 27 lakh voters deleted in West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) promises a hearing, but its tribunals cannot serve notices, hold hearings or restore voters on their portal. Judges of more than a dozen of the 19 tribunals recorded these gaps in August, in minutes sent to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Calcutta High Court’s Chief Justice.

How did the appeal tribunals come about?

1. What they are: Single-member bodies of retired High Court judges that hear a deleted voter’s appeal against removal from the roll, like an appeals court for the voter list.
2. Court takes over: Invoking Article 142 (its power to pass any order needed for “complete justice”), the Court on February 20 ordered judicial officers to decide electors’ eligibility.
3. Flagged by software: The ECI’s centralised software listed 60.06 lakh electors for “logical discrepancies” (mismatches its algorithm found in their records) or as “unmapped”.
4. Deleted before polls: Judicial officers deleted 27.16 lakh of them weeks before the April polls. The Court then ordered the tribunals on March 10.
5. The takeaway: The tribunals are the only check on deletions made in haste before an election, so their tools decide whether that check works.

What did the judges say the portal cannot do?

1. Serving notices: The portal, built by the ECI’s IT division, cannot serve notice, even after repeated requests. A notice format the judges approved in May was never used.
2. Securing documents: Tribunals cannot obtain additional documents through it, so they email district officials, who respond poorly.
3. Hearings and restoration: There is no facility for virtual hearings. A voter cannot be restored on the portal once an appeal is disposed of, even on a judicial direction.
4. Order copies: Appellants cannot get a certified or downloadable copy of the order, so they cannot learn why they were deleted or included.
5. Physical appeals: Appeals filed on paper with district officers are not digitised or properly recorded, which the judges warned would mean “injustice”.

Why do the portal gaps undermine the appeal process?

1. Court’s conditions unmet: The Court’s April 1 order told tribunals to give reasons and revisit records. The judges said that without these tools voters lose due process, a fair hearing.
2. Ignored warning: On May 22, a tribunal judge told the Chief Justice that missing notices were slowing appeal decisions and wrong disposal figures were reaching the press.
3. Slow disposal: Only 1.26 lakh of 38.31 lakh appeals had been decided by early September, the ECI told the Supreme Court.
4. Repeat failure: Before the polls, the Court recorded an “urgent concern” over an ECI mistake in the judicial officers’ portal.
5. Central control of software: Two Election Commissioners had objected that ECINET, the ECI’s main digital system, restricted field officers’ access.

Did the deletions decide the election?

1. Result and claim: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won the April polls by a landslide, and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) blamed deletions for its defeat.
2. Seats in question: Deletions exceeded the victory margin in 49 of 293 seats.
3. Even split: The BJP won 26 of those seats and the TMC 21, so the claim is more political than empirical.

Challenges

1. Software over court orders: A portal’s design, not the Court’s order, now sets what a judicial body can do.
2. No deadline for appeals: Rolls freeze when nominations close, so an appeal won later cannot restore a vote for that election.
3. Opaque flagging: “Logical discrepancies” have no published definition, so a voter cannot know what to rebut.

Way Forward

1. Portal fix under supervision: The ECI should add notice, document, hearing, restoration and order-download functions by a deadline the Calcutta High Court sets.
2. Digitise paper appeals: District officers should upload every physical appeal, as the ECI’s own notification requires.
3. Public disposal data: The ECI should publish tribunal-wise disposal figures every week.

Conclusion

The Court built an appeal route for deleted voters, but whether it works depends on a portal the ECI controls and has not fixed. Whether either court orders those functions added will decide if the remaining appeals are heard before the rolls next decide an election.

Key numbers

1. Appeals by deleted voters: 22.21 lakh, ECI submission to the Supreme Court, September 2026.
2. Appeals against inclusions: 16.10 lakh, seeking deletion of listed voters, same submission.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”