SC told 47 lakh ‘logical discrepancy’ cases adjudicated in West Bengal; remaining by April 7

The Supreme Court of India was informed that out of nearly 60 lakh claims and objections arising from the list of names categorised under “logical discrepancy” in West Bengal, around 47 lakh had been adjudicated by the evening of March 31, 2026, and the remaining 13 lakh would be decided by April 7. It was also stated that 19 Appellate Tribunals have been constituted to hear appeals against orders on these claims and objections.

Heading a Bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Chief Justice Surya Kant noted on Wednesday that a communication dated March 31 from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court indicated that over 46 lakh claims and objections had already been adjudicated, with the balance expected to be completed by April 7.

Advertisement

The Court was further informed that nearly 700 former and serving judicial officers overseeing the process are collectively deciding close to two lakh cases every day. Of these 700 judicial officers, 500 are from West Bengal, while 200 are from Odisha and Jharkhand.

It was stated that the 19 Appellate Tribunals, to be headed by former Chief Justices and senior High Court judges, will commence hearing appeals arising from decisions on the “logical discrepancy” list. These tribunals will also be empowered to consider fresh documents in appeal after verifying their genuineness. The Court observed that the tribunals are free to evolve their own procedures for hearing such appeals.

The Appellate Tribunals will function from offices located at the Shyama Prasad Mukherjee National Institute of Water and Sanitation. An orientation programme is being conducted for the former Chief Justices and judges heading these tribunals by the Election Commission of India.

When senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay objected to this orientation, the Bench dismissed the concern, stating that it was merely an orientation and not related to the merits of the matter. Justice Bagchi added that the judges had been called upon to discharge functions outside their regular judicial work, making such an orientation appropriate.

The Court emphasised that both the adjudicatory authorities dealing with claims and objections and the Appellate Tribunals hearing appeals must record reasons in their orders.

Addressing concerns raised by Kalyan Bandopadhyay regarding the bulk submission of Form 6 applications for the enrolment of new voters, the Court observed that such developments are not unusual and occur regularly, adding that political parties, including the Trinamool Congress, are free to raise objections.

On the issue of large-scale voter enrolment ahead of the State Assembly elections, Justice Bagchi clarified that there is a distinction between the revision of electoral rolls and the electoral roll used for polls. He noted that eligibility to vote in an ongoing election depends on the qualifying date fixed by the Election Commission, and mere inclusion at this stage does not automatically confer the right to vote.

“One is the amendment of the electoral roll, and the other is the electoral roll used for polls. The one used for polls is as per the qualifying date given by the ECI. Therefore, the inclusion of such a person will not give him the right to vote in an ongoing election,” Justice Bagchi said.

The Bench further observed that while the ongoing exercise to cleanse the electoral rolls must reach its logical conclusion, the constitutional right to vote cannot be indefinitely denied.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the West Bengal government, submitted that of the 60 lakh names in the “logical discrepancy” list, about 55 per cent had been included, while 45 per cent—a significant number—had been excluded.

The matter will next be heard on April 6, 2026.