ECI tells Supreme Court 16.10 lakh West Bengal SIR appeals were filed by CEO's office officers

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that 16.10 lakh appeals challenging the inclusion of voters in West Bengal's electoral rolls following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were filed by officers from the office of the state's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), rather than being brought before the Commission itself.

In a counter-affidavit filed on October 26, the ECI has justified the appeals by citing Supreme Court orders dated April 1 and April 6, 2026, in the case of Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India. The orders dealt with appeals arising from decisions taken by judicial officers during the SIR exercise and provided for appellate tribunals to examine relevant records and decide matters in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The affidavit was filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu on behalf of the ECI, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The explanation comes in response to a petition challenging 14 alleged unilateral decisions concerning the SIR exercise. The petition has questioned the authority under which approximately 16.10 lakh appeals against voter inclusions were filed in the name of the ECI in West Bengal and has sought the production of the relevant authorisation, approval and decision-making records.

ECI cites Supreme Court orders to justify appeals

In its counter-affidavit, the ECI has maintained that officers in the CEO's office were authorised to file the appeals under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions.

The Commission referred to a communication dated October 22, 2026, received from the office of the West Bengal CEO, stating that the appeals had been filed by its officers in their capacity as authorities under the Act.

“As per provisions of the RP Act, the CEO / DEO / ERO / AERO are the authorities in respect of electoral rolls. It is submitted that a communication dt. 22.10.2026 has been received by the office of the ECI from the office of the CEO, West Bengal, stating that the said Appeals have been filed by the officers of the Office of the CEO, West Bengal, in their capacity as authorities under the RP Act. The officers had the authority to file the Appeals as per the orders of this Hon'ble Court and these matters were not brought to the Commission,” the affidavit states.

The ECI has thus argued that the appeals were filed by officers exercising their statutory authority and that the matters were not separately placed before the Commission.

The petition, however, has raised questions about who authorised the filing of the appeals. It refers to a noting dated August 12, 2026, attributed to Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, which asked: “Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?”

The petitioner has sought the production of the original records to establish the authorisation and approval process behind the appeals.

What the Supreme Court said about the appellate tribunals

During the West Bengal SIR exercise, the Supreme Court appointed judicial officers to adjudicate claims and objections relating to the electoral rolls. It subsequently directed the constitution of appellate tribunals to hear appeals against exclusions from the voter lists.

In its April 1 order in the Mostari Banu case, the Court recorded the ECI counsel's submission that the appellate tribunals would have access to the relevant records in appeals filed both by people challenging their exclusion and by ECI authorities contesting the inclusion of certain voters.

The Court directed the tribunals to examine the complete records, including the reasons provided by the judicial officers who had adjudicated the claims and objections. It also said the tribunals could devise their own procedures, provided these were consistent with the principles of natural justice and ensured that affected parties received a fair hearing.

The Court reiterated its position in the April 6 order, explicitly referring to appeals filed by ECI authorities against the inclusion of names in the electoral rolls.

“The premises shortlisted for the functioning of these appellate tribunals are duly mentioned in paragraph 6 of our order dated 01.04.2026. We also clarified through paragraph 9 of that order that the alleged non-availability of reasons for rejection of the objections by the adjudicating officers could be raised before the Appellate Tribunals by persons whose names have been excluded from the voters' list or by such objectors/authorities of the ECI, who might be aggrieved by the inclusion of certain names in the voter list,” the April 6 order stated.

The ECI has relied on these directions to argue that its officers were permitted to file appeals against voter inclusions.

Petition questions unilateral decisions by the Chief Election Commissioner

The dispute over the West Bengal appeals forms part of a broader petition challenging 14 decisions allegedly taken unilaterally in connection with the SIR exercise.

The petition seeks a declaration that decisions vested in the multi-member ECI cannot be taken unilaterally by the Chief Election Commissioner. It also seeks the production of the Commission's original records and the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar pending adjudication of the matter.

The appeals against voter inclusions in West Bengal have been cited as one of the alleged unilateral actions. The petition relies on allegations that 14 decisions connected with the SIR were taken in the CEC's name despite objections from the other Election Commissioners.

In its response, the ECI has maintained that decisions concerning the SIR were taken by the Commission in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The Commission has further argued that observations, suggestions or queries raised by individual Election Commissioners during deliberations do not, by themselves, constitute decisions of the Commission.

The Supreme Court issued notice on the challenge to the alleged unilateral decisions on October 5. It declined, at that stage, to suspend the Chief Election Commissioner before obtaining responses from the respondents.

The latest counter-affidavit sets out the ECI's position on the authority behind the West Bengal appeals, while the broader dispute over the alleged unilateral exercise of powers remains before the Court.