The Anatomy of Exclusion, How West Bengal’s SIR Became a Blueprint for Electoral Manipulation
The SIR in West Bengal was a Special Impediment Removal exercise designed by the BJP, executed by the Election Commission of India (ECI), and certified by the Supreme Court. Carefully designed to remove the demographic impediment faced by the BJP in its desperate bid to conquer Bengal, obediently executed by an army of outspoken officials deployed by the ECI, bypassing its established structure and processes, and repeatedly certified by the Supreme Court, not quite in control of, or fully aware of, the disenfranchising consequences of its orders. Over the past months, we have normalised the deletion of large numbers of names in the Special Summary Revision (SIR). Even by those standards, Bengal is an extraordinary case of SIR-led disenfranchisement. It needn’t have been so. There was nothing unusual about the voters’ list in Bengal. Nothing that required special treatment. Unless you look at it from the BJP’s eyes.
The Perfect Electorate: A List That Needed No Fixing
Take the size of the electorate. In October 2025, prior to the SIR, Bengal’s electoral rolls had 7.66 crore names. Almost exactly the same number as the adult population in the state that month—7.67 crore. Rarely does one find such a perfect electorate-population ratio. Clearly, there was no cause for alarm on this score. Nor is there any truth in the rumours that the Trinamool Congress (TMC) had used state officials to smuggle in massive insertions in the voters’ list just before the SIR. The total number of fresh inclusions in June-August 2025 was just 3.5 lakh, about 0.4 per cent. As many as 41 per cent of applications for inclusion of names during this period were rejected. This rules out the possibility of official complicity. The list was clean. The list was accurate. The list did not need a special revision.
Or, take the first stage of the SIR. A total of 58 lakh names were excluded in the draft SIR list of West Bengal. That works out to 7.7 per cent of the pre-SIR list in the state, not very different from Rajasthan (7.6 per cent) or Madhya Pradesh (7.3 per cent). The proportion of “unmapped” voters (those who filled an enumeration form without proving that they or their blood relatives were on the 2002 voters list) was not unusually low. At 4.5 per cent, the figure in Bengal was higher than Chhattisgarh (3.5 per cent), Tamil Nadu (2.3 per cent), and Rajasthan and MP (both 1.6 per cent). It was SIR as usual: large-scale haphazard deletions. Thus far, there was nothing to suggest that the voters’ list in Bengal was unduly inflated or not subjected to due pruning.
This is when the alarm went off. We can only guess that the button must have been pushed at the BJP headquarters. The bell must have rung very loud at the Nirvachan Sadan. Loud enough for the ECI to take a series of extraordinary steps.
The Extraordinary Measures: 30 Roll Observers and 8,000 Micro-Observers
The ECI appointed 30 roll observers and special poll officers on top of the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) designated for the job, and 8,000 micro-observers to work under them to ensure made-to-order deletions. For context, the number of roll and special observers in Uttar Pradesh was four. No other state had a single micro-observer. This was not a routine administrative exercise; it was a military-style deployment designed to achieve a political objective.
When this did not yield the desired level of deletions, the ECI weaponised “logical discrepancies”. This basic software check flags any mismatch between personal details supplied now and those recorded in 2002. It was run in all the states where the SIR was carried out after Bihar. In West Bengal, the proportion of draft voters’ list entries with “discrepancies” (mismatch of name, relation’s name, or improbable age gaps between parents and children) was about the same as in other states. But in other states, the ECI overlooked or corrected the discrepancies arising from spelling variations or mis-recording of age. Not in Bengal. Notices were issued to over 1.3 crore persons on the draft voters’ list. They were asked to furnish documents at special hearings. Even this did not yield more than 6 lakh deletions. And there was no legal way to achieve further deletions.
The Supreme Court’s Role: A Certification of Injustice
Now the ECI knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court with a convinced majority in the state. The apex court obliged by using its extraordinary powers and created a special adjudicative mechanism to settle “disputed” cases. The court did not insist on a transparent process to decide which cases were to be sent for adjudication. Out of nowhere, the number of such disputes rose to 60 lakh. Till this date, no one can tell how and why 76 lakh logical discrepancies were resolved and 60 lakh sent for further adjudication. The court did not lay down a fair and clear protocol for how this adjudication was to take place. And the court did not apply its mind to how a few hundred judges were to decide 60 lakh cases within 35 days. The final outcome could not but be a miscarriage of justice. At a scale unknown in recent history.
The scandal in the deletion of 27 lakh names (out of the 60 lakh under adjudication, over and above the 58 lakh and 6 lakh excluded in the earlier stages) is not just in the sheer numbers. It is in the fact that all these 27 lakh persons had filled the requisite enumeration form, had responded to the ECI’s notice, had attended a scheduled hearing, had produced documents (most applications that this author reviewed had submitted PAN Card, birth or school certificate, and in many cases passport, besides Aadhaar), and have no idea why their case went up for adjudication and why it was decided against them. The scandal is that Bengal is the only state where the number of deletions went up after the draft SIR list was released. The scandal is that nearly two-thirds of those deleted are from the minority community.
The Comedy of Tribunals: 657 Appeals Disposed, 34 Lakh Pending
The final act was a bit of a comedy. Faced with the deletion of 27 lakh names and with no time left before polling day, the Supreme Court post-haste set up appellate tribunals that simply could not take off. Till the first phase, despite the prodding by the apex court, these tribunals have “disposed of” 657 appeals, out of 34 lakh or so that are pending. Analysis by the SABAR Institute tells us that so far, about 89 per cent of the “adjudication” decisions that the Supreme Court was happy to rely upon have been overturned by the tribunals. Add a tadka of comedy to a tragedy and you have a perfect farce: the SIR in West Bengal.
The tribunals were a fig leaf. They were created to give the appearance of due process, but they were never given the time, the resources, or the authority to actually hear appeals. A few hundred judges cannot decide 34 lakh cases in a matter of weeks. The appeals were doomed from the start. The fact that 89 per cent of the decisions have been overturned is proof that the original adjudication was flawed. But those overturned decisions came too late. The voters whose names were deleted have already been disenfranchised. The election has already been held. The damage is done.
The Democratic Implications: A Blueprint for Future Elections
What happened in West Bengal is not an isolated incident. It is a blueprint. The same tactics—special observers, micro-observers, weaponised “logical discrepancies”, Supreme Court certification, and post-hoc tribunals—could be deployed in any state where the ruling party at the Centre wants to shape the electoral outcome. The SIR process has been normalised. The deletions have been normalised. The disenfranchisement has been normalised. We have, as a nation, learned to accept that lakhs of citizens can be removed from the voter list without due process, without proper notice, without a meaningful hearing.
The Constitution guarantees the right to vote. Article 326 states that every citizen over 18 shall be entitled to be registered as a voter. That right is not conditional on producing documents that the ECI invents, or on surviving a software check, or on navigating a Kafkaesque adjudication process. The right to vote is a fundamental right—not listed in Part III, but essential to the functioning of democracy.
The Election Commission has a constitutional mandate to conduct free and fair elections. It is not a political actor. It is not an agent of the ruling party. It is not a weapon to be deployed against political opponents. The SIR in West Bengal violated that mandate. It violated the trust that citizens place in the Commission. It violated the Constitution.
The Way Forward: Restoring Faith in the Electoral Process
What can be done? First, the Supreme Court must conduct a thorough inquiry into the SIR process in West Bengal. It must determine who decided to treat Bengal differently from other states, why 30 roll observers and 8,000 micro-observers were deployed, and why the “logical discrepancy” software was applied in Bengal differently from other states. It must hold the ECI accountable.
Second, the Court must reform the SIR process. It must require that deletions be done only after individual notice, after a hearing, and with a clear statement of reasons. It must prohibit the use of “logical discrepancies” as a basis for deletion unless the voter has been given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. It must ensure that appellate tribunals are adequately resourced and have sufficient time to hear appeals before elections.
Third, the government must strengthen the legal framework for voter registration. The Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, were written for a different era. They need to be updated to reflect the realities of digital documentation, Aadhaar, and mobile communication. But any update must prioritise inclusion, not exclusion. The goal should be to make it easier to vote, not harder.
Fourth, civil society must remain vigilant. The SIR in West Bengal was not discovered by the ECI or the Supreme Court; it was discovered by journalists, activists, and political opponents. Those watchdogs must continue to bark. The public must continue to demand transparency.
Conclusion: A Tragedy and a Farce
The SIR in West Bengal is a tragedy for the 27 lakh voters who were deleted, for the millions more who were put through the ordeal of hearings and adjudication, and for the democratic process itself. It is a farce that the ECI, the Supreme Court, and the government have allowed this to happen. Add a tadka of comedy to a tragedy and you have a perfect farce.
The question is not whether the SIR was legal. It was certified by the Supreme Court, so it is presumptively legal. The question is whether it was just. The answer, for 27 lakh voters, is no. And for the rest of us, the answer should be: never again.
Q&A: The SIR Controversy in West Bengal
Q1: What was the state of West Bengal’s electoral roll before the SIR, and was there any justification for a special revision?
A1: Before the SIR, Bengal’s electoral rolls had 7.66 crore names, almost exactly matching the adult population (7.67 crore)—a “perfect electorate-population ratio.” Fresh inclusions in June-August 2025 were just 3.5 lakh (0.4 per cent), and 41 per cent of inclusion applications were rejected, ruling out “official complicity.” The first stage of the SIR deleted 58 lakh names (7.7 per cent), similar to Rajasthan (7.6 per cent) and Madhya Pradesh (7.3 per cent). The article concludes: “There was nothing unusual about the voters’ list in Bengal. Nothing that required special treatment. Unless you look at it from the BJP’s eyes.”
Q2: What extraordinary steps did the ECI take in West Bengal that were not taken in other states?
A2: The ECI appointed 30 roll observers and special poll officers (Uttar Pradesh had 4) and 8,000 micro-observers (no other state had a single micro-observer). The ECI “weaponised ‘logical discrepancies’.” While the proportion of entries with discrepancies was similar to other states, in other states the ECI “overlooked or corrected” discrepancies arising from spelling variations or mis-recorded age. Not in Bengal. Notices were issued to over 1.3 crore persons. After this yielded only 6 lakh deletions, the ECI approached the Supreme Court to create a “special adjudicative mechanism.”
Q3: What role did the Supreme Court play in the SIR process, and what were the consequences?
A3: The Supreme Court “obliged” the ECI by using its “extraordinary powers” to create a special adjudicative mechanism. The Court did not insist on a “transparent process” to decide which cases went for adjudication. The number of disputed cases rose to 60 lakh “out of nowhere.” The Court did not lay down a “fair and clear protocol” for adjudication and did not apply its mind to how “a few hundred judges were to decide 60 lakh cases within 35 days.” The result was a “miscarriage of justice.” 27 lakh names were deleted in the adjudication stage—beyond the 58 lakh and 6 lakh deleted earlier. Bengal is the “only state where the number of deletions went up after the draft SIR list was released.” Nearly two-thirds of those deleted are from the minority community.
Q4: How effective were the appellate tribunals set up by the Supreme Court?
A4: The Supreme Court “post-haste set up appellate tribunals that simply could not take off.” Till the first phase of voting, the tribunals had “disposed of” 657 appeals, out of 34 lakh or so that are pending. Analysis by the SABAR Institute found that about 89 per cent of the ‘adjudication’ decisions that the Supreme Court was happy to rely upon have been overturned by the tribunals. The tribunals were a “fig leaf” to give “the appearance of due process” but were never given the “time, the resources, or the authority to actually hear appeals.” The overturned decisions came “too late”—the voters were already disenfranchised. The article calls it a “perfect farce.”
Q5: What reforms does the article recommend to prevent future SIR abuses?
A5: The article recommends four reforms:
-
Supreme Court inquiry: The Court must conduct a “thorough inquiry” into why Bengal was treated differently, why 30 observers and 8,000 micro-observers were deployed, and why “logical discrepancies” were applied differently. The ECI must be “held accountable.”
-
Reform the SIR process: Require “individual notice” before deletion, a “hearing,” and a “clear statement of reasons.” Prohibit the use of “logical discrepancies” unless the voter is given an opportunity to explain. Ensure appellate tribunals are “adequately resourced” and have sufficient time.
-
Strengthen legal framework: Update the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, to reflect digital realities, but “prioritise inclusion, not exclusion.”
-
Civil society vigilance: The SIR in West Bengal was “not discovered by the ECI or the Supreme Court; it was discovered by journalists, activists, and political opponents.” Those watchdogs must “continue to bark.”
The article concludes with the question: “The question is not whether the SIR was legal. It was certified by the Supreme Court, so it is presumptively legal. The question is whether it was just. The answer, for 27 lakh voters, is no. And for the rest of us, the answer should be: never again.” Add a tadka of comedy to a tragedy and you have a perfect farce.
