Overview
The Supreme Court on 20 April 2026 ordered that the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant will obtain a report from the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice on the functioning of the Appellate Tribunals created after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in West Bengal.
Key Developments
- Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat alleged that the tribunals are not functioning despite earlier Supreme Court directions.
- The tribunals allegedly refuse physical applications, allow only internet‑based filings, and bar lawyers from representing parties.
- The Court had previously ordered that any appeal allowed within two days of the polling dates (23 April and 29 April 2026) must enable the petitioner to vote.
- CJI Surya Kant expressed displeasure at the repeated filings and said a report will be obtained “today itself”.
Important Facts
1. The electoral rolls are being revised under SIR to delete ineligible names and add eligible ones before the 2026 Lok Sabha elections in West Bengal.
2. The Appellate Tribunals were constituted by the Election Commission to provide a speedy remedy, but their inactivity threatens the constitutional right to vote.
3. The Supreme Court’s earlier order mandated that any appeal allowed within two days of the polling date must be acted upon so that the petitioner can cast a vote.
UPSC Relevance
Understanding the interplay between the judiciary and the Election Commission is essential for GS 2 (Polity). The episode illustrates:
- Judicial oversight of administrative machinery – the Supreme Court can direct High Courts to monitor compliance.
- Procedural safeguards in electoral administration – the SIR process and the role of Appellate Tribunals ensure fairness in voter registration.
- Constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage (Article 326) and the mechanisms to protect it.
Way Forward
• The CJI is expected to submit a detailed report on tribunal functioning, which will guide corrective orders.
• The Election Commission may need to issue fresh guidelines to ensure physical filing options and lawyer representation, thereby aligning tribunal operations with constitutional mandates.
• Persistent non‑compliance could invite contempt proceedings against the officials overseeing the tribunals, reinforcing the principle that administrative bodies must obey judicial directives.