the news now
This is a new development in a story we have covered before · earlier coverage

Supreme Court seeks ECI data on West Bengal electoral roll appeals

3 sources · India

Who reported this

  • The Hindu India · Centre-left · Kasturi & Sons (family-owned)
  • The Indian Express India · Centre · Indian Express Group (Goenka family)
  • Hindustan Times India · Centre-right · HT Media (KK Birla group)

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.

Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.

Every source for this story reports from India.

The Supreme Court of India has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide a detailed breakdown of appeals pending before 19 appellate tribunals in West Bengal. These tribunals were established following a special intensive revision (SIR) of the state electoral rolls. A three judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, requested data to distinguish between appeals seeking the inclusion of voters and those seeking their exclusion. The court noted that voters excluded from the rolls are denuded of their voting rights and may require prioritization.

According to a Right to Information (RTI) response submitted to the court, approximately 3.81 million appeals were filed. The data indicates that roughly 700,000 appeals were filed by disenfranchised voters seeking inclusion, while about 3.1 million appeals sought the exclusion of names from the rolls. Of the 82,782 appeals decided so far, over 75,000 resulted in the inclusion of names, meaning more than 91 percent of decided cases favored the voters.

Legal representatives for the petitioners argued that the high volume of exclusion appeals burdens the tribunals and should not take priority over those seeking to regain voting rights. The court agreed that all appeals should be decided well before the 2029 parliamentary elections. The bench also stated it would determine if more tribunals are necessary after reviewing the ECI statistics.

How each side framed it

Centre-left
Framed the issue around the disenfranchisement of voters and the potential for the high number of exclusion appeals to be used as a tool for voter suppression.
Centre
Focused on the statistical outcome of the decided appeals, highlighting that 91 percent of names were restored to the rolls.
Centre-right
Emphasized the disproportionate number of appeals seeking cuts to the electoral rolls compared to those seeking inclusion.

Sources

100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.