Hearing Process Ambiguity
A significant lack of clarity surrounds the hearing process for tribunals dealing with appeals against deletions from the voter list. Applicants, like Aloke Basu from Haridevpur, who attempted to approach
the appellate tribunal, and their legal advisors, are completely in the dark regarding the procedural steps required to reinstate their names. Basu's own experience illustrates this confusion; he visited the Dr. Syama Prasad Mookherjee National Institute of Water and Sanitation twice, hoping for a hearing to correct what he believes was a wrongful deletion due to the misspelling of his last name from 'Basu' to 'Bose'. He reports no communication about a hearing date. Many neighbours facing similar deletions are also unaware of the process, fearing their fate might be decided based on the same flawed logic that led to their initial removal. Legal professionals assisting affected individuals, such as Raghunath Chakraborty in Howrah, have noted the absence of a central platform, like a website, where hearing dates could be publicly listed, further exacerbating the disarray.
Tribunals Functioning, Still Confused
Despite the establishment of 16 tribunals, which reportedly began functioning from Monday as per Chief Justice Sujoy Paul's communication to the Supreme Court, the deleted electors and their legal counsel continue to grapple with profound uncertainty. The core issues remain unresolved: how will individuals be summoned for hearings, and where can they access the official orders issued by these tribunals? This ambiguity was highlighted during an April 6 Supreme Court hearing where Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged concerns raised by Chief Justice Paul concerning the procedure for granting 'personal hearings' to affected parties. Advocates like Firdous Samim from the Calcutta High Court expressed that the method of summoning applicants is not defined. It is unclear whether hearings will be in-person or if tribunals will solely rely on already submitted documents. Furthermore, the specific documents that applicants should present to the tribunals are also not clearly communicated, adding another layer of complexity to the already convoluted process for citizens seeking to rectify their electoral status.
Precedents and Procedures
The Supreme Court's involvement has brought attention to the procedural gaps. During the April 6 hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant referred to a retired chief justice's concerns regarding the method of providing personal hearings. Advocate Firdous Samim shared experiences of two cases he handled for election candidates. In one instance, for Motab Shaikh from Farakka, Samim physically appeared at Bichar Bhawan, submitted documents, and successfully had the name restored, enabling his client to contest. Citing a Supreme Court order from September 8, 2025, former Justice T.S. Sivagnanam observed that Aadhaar cards could be accepted as supporting identity documents, even though they aren't definitive proof of citizenship. In another case involving Kechhabuddin Sekh from Kaliganj, Samim participated via a conference call link, and the applicant was also present. Kechhabuddin's name was subsequently ordered to be included upon verification of documents proving his permanent residency in Nadia's Hat Gobindapur village. Samim suggested an online platform for order dissemination, noting that Motab's case was cited as a precedent in a petition filed with the SC on Monday. A three-member panel, formed by CJ Sujoy Paul following the April 7 SC order to develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), comprises former CJ T.S. Sivagnanam, Justice Pradipta Roy, and Justice Pranab Kumar Deb. However, deleted electors remain confused, with their only confirmation of appeal being an 'appeal number' received via SMS.
