Four in 10 Appeals Against Voter Inclusion Came From Election Commission, Says Bengal SIR Tribunal Judge

Justice Indrajit Chatterjee says Bengal’s Additional CEO filed 2.54 lakh appeals challenging voters’ inclusion.

What Happened

Retired Justice Indrajit Chatterjee has told The Wire that West Bengal’s Additional Chief Electoral Officer filed around 2.54 lakh appeals challenging voters’ inclusion before his Murshidabad tribunal. The outlet’s 1 October 2026 report describes these as roughly four in every ten appeals before that tribunal.

The reference to the “Election Commission” concerns the state Additional CEO’s office, part of West Bengal’s election machinery. The account does not establish that the full Commission or its commissioners authorised the filings.

These appeals sought removal of electors already included on the rolls. According to the interview, the Additional CEO filed all the appeals against inclusion before Chatterjee’s tribunal. The figure and proportion remain attributed to that interview.

Background & Context

The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of West Bengal’s electoral rolls involved judicial examination of disputed voter records. The subsequent tribunal proceedings include both appeals by excluded voters seeking restoration and challenges to the inclusion of voters whom judicial officers had cleared.

According to The Wire’s reporting, republished by Vibes of India, the ECI disclosed 16,10,311 appeals against inclusion in its 16 September 2026 reply to an application in Derek O’Brien v. Election Commission of India before the Supreme Court. That figure covers West Bengal’s tribunals collectively; Chatterjee’s 2.54 lakh figure concerns his tribunal alone.

The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu asked in August who had authorised appeals on the Commission’s behalf and who had filed them. His note reportedly recorded that neither he, fellow Commissioner Vivek Joshi, nor the serving West Bengal CEO had been informed of the basis or process. The Wire dates that inquiry to 12 August.

Key Details

• The forum is the SIR Appellate Tribunal for Murshidabad, reported as Appellate Tribunal No. 11.
• Its presiding officer is Justice Indrajit Chatterjee, a former Calcutta High Court judge.
• Chatterjee has offered to resign with effect from 2 November 2026, citing the long commute between Salt Lake and Joka amid poor roads and heavy traffic.
• No decision on that offer had been reported in LawChakra’s 1 October coverage.

Why It Matters

For Lexibal, the significance lies in the source of the account. A presiding tribunal officer’s description adds a direct institutional perspective to reporting previously centred on aggregate figures and journalists’ examination of records.

For law students and practitioners, it raises concrete procedural questions: how are appeals authorised on behalf of an election authority, what approval records accompany them, and how are affected electors informed and heard? Those questions merit examination without treating the reported filings as evidence of wrongdoing.

Capacity is another concern. The Wire reports Chatterjee’s assessment that hearing appeals and writing reasoned orders permits about ten disposals daily. Against a backlog described by other reports as several lakh, that raises questions about staffing and timely adjudication.

If his resignation takes effect, tribunal capacity would require further attention. His stated reason remains the commute.

Reactions

Chatterjee also emphasised the need for carefully reasoned tribunal orders, given the possibility of a challenge before a higher forum.

In response to the earlier Indian Express investigation, the ECI said Commission decisions had been unanimous and observations formed part of deliberations. That response preceded this interview. No response specifically addressing Chatterjee’s remarks was found in the reporting reviewed for this article.

Closing

The judge’s account adds detail to the debate over Bengal’s SIR appeals. Establishing the authorisation and procedure behind particular filings requires the relevant records and any official explanation. The reporting does not itself settle those questions.