Supreme Court Directs Out-of-Turn Hearing for 75-Year-Old Advocate Challenging Deletion From West Bengal Voter List
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Appellate Tribunal constituted to adjudicate disputes arising from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal to grant an out-of-turn hearing to a 75-year-old advocate whose name was deleted from the electoral rolls.
Observing that the petitioner appeared to be a genuine citizen and bona fide resident of West Bengal, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana directed the Tribunal to expeditiously decide his appeal, which had allegedly remained pending since March 2026.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Md. Yean Ali, is a septuagenarian advocate from Murshidabad who has been enrolled with the Bar Council of West Bengal since 1977 and has practised before the district courts for over five decades.
According to the petitioner, he had been exercising his right to vote for more than fifty years and his status as a voter had never been questioned. Despite submitting the requisite documents during the Special Intensive Revision process and filing an appeal under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, his challenge to the deletion of his name from the electoral rolls had not been taken up for hearing.
Aggrieved by the delay, he approached the Supreme Court seeking intervention.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
During the hearing, Advocate Shakil Sheikh submitted that the petitioner's appeal had been pending since March 27, 2026, rendering the statutory remedy ineffective.
It was argued that the petitioner had been a recognised voter even prior to 2002 and had continuously exercised his franchise without interruption. Counsel also highlighted that the petitioner had been practising law for over fifty years and possessed impeccable credentials.
Supreme Court's Observations
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that, prima facie, the petitioner appeared to be a genuine citizen and a bona fide resident of West Bengal.
The Court, however, noted that a mechanism had already been created for adjudicating disputes arising from the electoral revision exercise through Appellate Tribunals headed by former Chief Justices and retired High Court judges.
Taking note of the petitioner's grievance, the Bench stated that his case deserved priority consideration.
The Court also recorded that it had received communication from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court indicating that a large number of appeals were pending before the tribunals and that additional time would be required for their disposal.
Direction Issued by the Court
In view of the circumstances, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the concerned Appellate Tribunal to grant the petitioner an out-of-turn hearing and decide his appeal expeditiously.
The Court refrained from adjudicating the merits of the dispute, leaving the issue to be decided by the specialised appellate mechanism already constituted for dealing with voter exclusion cases.
Special Intensive Revision and Electoral Roll Litigation
The present case forms part of the wider litigation arising from the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls conducted in West Bengal ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
The exercise reportedly resulted in the deletion of lakhs of names from the electoral rolls, leading to extensive proceedings before the Supreme Court.
To address the large number of challenges, the Court had earlier directed the constitution of Appellate Tribunals comprising former Chief Justices and retired judges of various High Courts.
By April 2026, more than 34 lakh appeals had reportedly been filed before these tribunals, making the electoral revision exercise one of the most significant voter-list disputes in recent times.
Why This Order Matters
The order underscores the Supreme Court's emphasis on ensuring that statutory remedies remain effective and accessible, particularly in cases involving elderly citizens and long-standing voters.
The Court's observations also indicate that while specialised tribunals are the primary forums for adjudicating disputes arising out of the Special Intensive Revision exercise, exceptional cases involving prolonged delay may warrant judicial intervention to secure expeditious consideration.
The decision further highlights the significance of balancing institutional mechanisms with the need to protect citizens from procedural delays that may adversely affect their electoral rights.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court directed an out-of-turn hearing for a 75-year-old advocate challenging deletion of his name from the West Bengal voter list.
The Court observed that the petitioner appeared to be a genuine citizen and bona fide resident of West Bengal.
The Bench noted that appellate tribunals headed by former High Court judges had already been constituted to decide such disputes.
Taking note of the pendency of the petitioner's appeal, the Court directed the tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously.
The case forms part of broader litigation arising from the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls conducted ahead of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.
Case Title: Md. Yean Ali v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 781 of 2026