A staggering backlog in resolving voter exclusions under West Bengal's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) threatens to leave millions of residents disenfranchised for well over a decade. Fresh data submitted by the Election Commission before the Supreme Court shows that appellate tribunals established under judicial directives are progressing at a pace that would require roughly 12 years and two months to deliver final verdicts on all pending claims.
Slow Disposal Rates Against Mounting Caseloads
Records show that these tribunals commenced operations in mid-April. Across the five months since their launch, they have managed to resolve merely 1,26,194 individual applications. Even if weekends and holidays are treated as full working days, the administrative machinery has achieved an average output of only 25,238 decisions per month. Meanwhile, the ledger of pending appeals stood at an immense 37,05,235 as of September 16.
Operating without a single day off across every week, finishing this staggering mountain of more than 3.7 million cases would require roughly 146 months. In practical terms, this 12-year timeline means that countless affected residents risk missing the opportunity to cast ballots across numerous parliamentary general elections, state assembly races, and local municipality contests while waiting for their legal status to be restored.
Election Commission Proposes Infrastructure Expansion
Conceding that the existing operational setup and personnel are inadequate to manage such an unprecedented caseload, the Election Commission urged the Supreme Court to approve significant structural reinforcements. Specifically, the poll body sought permission to increase the number of appellate tribunals across the state from the current 24 to 42, matching the total number of parliamentary constituencies in West Bengal.
Responding to a petition moved by TMC Member of Parliament Derek O’Brien, the commission submitted that raising the tribunal count would facilitate smoother and swifter disposal of pending appeals. Furthermore, the commission proposed granting judicial officers permission to conduct proceedings and perform duties from home, arguing that eliminating daily commuting time would directly accelerate case resolutions.
Procedural Standards and Judicial Discretion
Addressing another petition challenging the operational efficiency of the system, the commission pointed out that these tribunals were constituted directly in accordance with Supreme Court mandates. Their operational mechanics are governed by a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) formulated by a dedicated committee that included a former judge of the Calcutta High Court.
In its formal submission, the commission noted that the prayers made by the petitioner focus on operational practicalities, administrative routines, and access to the appellate machinery. Consequently, these aspects fall squarely within the designated SOP established for the presiding authorities. The commission maintained that decisions regarding procedural feasibility, day-to-day mechanisms, and ground-level execution ought to be left to the sound judgement of the respective appellate tribunals.
