Bengal SIR Row: Judges Flag EC Portal Issues, Say No Facility to Restore Deleted Names

Bengal SIR Appeals Face Digital Roadblocks

The Supreme Court-mandated appeal mechanism for voters deleted from West Bengal’s electoral rolls is facing serious digital hurdles, with judges of more than a dozen Tribunals flagging multiple deficiencies in the Election Commission’s portal.

The judges, who are handling appeals linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), have complained that the system does not allow them to serve notices, seek additional documents, conduct virtual hearings or restore a deleted voter.

They have also pointed out that appellants cannot download copies of Tribunal orders from the portal.

The concerns were formally recorded during a meeting of Tribunal judges on August 11 and subsequently conveyed to the Election Commission of India and the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.

No Mechanism to Serve Notices

The absence of a digital system for serving notices emerged as one of the major concerns.

According to the minutes of the meeting, the Tribunals had repeatedly requested a common mechanism to notify parties either directly or through the appropriate authorities. A format for issuing notices had also been approved by some judges in May, but the system had not been operationalised.

In the absence of a dedicated facility, Tribunals were using emails routed through District Magistrates or District Election Officers. Judges said the response through this arrangement was inadequate and was affecting the pace of disposal of appeals.

Portal Cannot Handle Additional Documents

The judges also highlighted difficulties in cases where voters need to submit documents beyond those already uploaded.

They said the portal did not provide a mechanism for Tribunals to obtain and store additional documents when the material submitted by an appellant was incomplete or did not meet the required format.

As a result, individual Tribunals were adopting their own methods to obtain records, creating an inconsistent process.

Deleted Names Cannot Be Restored

One of the most significant shortcomings flagged by the judges relates to implementation of judicial orders.

According to the meeting minutes, once a voter’s name is deleted or included through the portal, there is no facility to restore the name if a Tribunal or court subsequently directs that restoration.

The issue is central to the appellate process because the Tribunals were specifically created to give deleted voters an opportunity to challenge their exclusion.

No Virtual Hearing Facility

The portal also does not provide a mechanism for conducting virtual hearings, the judges said.

This creates an additional logistical hurdle when a Tribunal decides that parties need to be heard remotely.

The judges said the lack of such a facility was among the issues affecting the efficient functioning of the appellate system.

Appellants Cannot Download Orders

Another concern was the absence of a facility for appellants to obtain certified or downloadable copies of Tribunal orders.

Without access to the orders through the designated portal, voters may not be able to easily determine why their names were included or deleted or understand the basis of a decision.

The concern assumes importance because the Supreme Court had directed Tribunals to examine the relevant records and communicate reasons while deciding appeals.

Physical Appeals Add to the Problem

The judges also raised concerns over appeals filed offline with District Magistrates and District Election Officers.

They said there was no clear system for maintaining such records if physical appeals were not digitised and uploaded to the portal. Failure to bring those appeals into the digital system, they warned, could result in injustice to citizens.

The Supreme Court had addressed the issue as early as April 6, noting that voters could file appeals either online or physically and that the concerned authorities were required to digitise and upload physical appeals on the ECINET platform.

Judge Had Flagged Issue in May

The concerns over the notice mechanism had surfaced even before the August meeting.

On May 22, a Tribunal judge wrote to the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, warning that the absence of a proper system for notifying parties was adversely affecting the disposal of appeals.

The judge also questioned the accuracy of figures being cited regarding the number of appeals disposed of, alleging that information reaching the media did not reflect the difficulties Tribunals were facing in issuing notices.

EC Yet to Respond to Questions

The latest concerns come against the backdrop of separate questions raised over the functioning of ECINET.

An earlier investigation by The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners had recorded 14 objections over 10 months concerning decisions related to electoral-roll procedures, including access to the EC’s digital systems.

Following those concerns, the EC announced plans for a committee involving an independent expert to review ECINET and examine whether the system complied with legal requirements.

The Indian Express contacted the Election Commission and the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court on October 1 seeking responses on the Tribunal judges’ concerns and whether the problems had since been resolved. No response had been received.

Why the Tribunal Process Matters

The Tribunal mechanism was created specifically to deal with the fallout from the Bengal SIR exercise.

The EC had initially identified 60.06 lakh electors as cases involving “logical discrepancies” or “unmapped” records based on documents submitted during the revision.

After scrutiny by judicial officers, 27.16 lakh voters were deleted from the electoral rolls.

Following Supreme Court intervention under Article 142, judicial officers were appointed to examine the eligibility of electors. The court subsequently ordered the creation of appellate Tribunals comprising retired High Court judges to allow affected voters to challenge deletions.

The EC notified 19 single-member Tribunals on March 20. Two judges have since stepped down for personal reasons and were reportedly replaced.

38.31 Lakh Appeals Filed

The scale of the appellate exercise is substantial.

In a submission to the Supreme Court on September 18, the EC said 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed as of September 10, but only 1.26 lakh had been disposed of.

Of these appeals, 22.21 lakh were filed by voters whose names had been deleted, while 16.10 lakh sought deletion of names included in the rolls.

The gap between the number of appeals filed and those disposed of has put additional focus on the ability of the Tribunals to function efficiently.

Supreme Court Had Earlier Flagged Portal Issues

Technical concerns are not new to the Bengal SIR process.

Before the appellate Tribunals began handling the cases, judicial officers examining the original list of around 60 lakh electors had also reported problems with the portal used for their work.

The Supreme Court, in its March 10 order, recorded the concerns conveyed through the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and noted the Election Commission’s assurance that the technical issues would be rectified without delay.

The court had also asked the EC to provide full logistical support to the High Court and judicial officers.

The latest complaints now raise questions over whether the digital infrastructure is adequately equipped to support the appellate process involving millions of voter-related cases.