Examine the adequacy of appellate remedies available to voters excluded from electoral rolls. Suggest reforms to make them time-bound.

Being on the electoral roll is the gateway to adult suffrage under Article 326 [4]. West Bengal's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows where the appeal system breaks down. 38.31 lakh appeals are before 19 Appellate Tribunals, and only about 3% had been decided by October 2026 [1]. The remedy exists on paper, but no law makes it time-bound.

Existing remedies: what works

• Prior hearing: Section 22, RPA 1950 requires the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to give a "reasonable opportunity of being heard" before deleting a name [2].
• Two-tier appeal: Section 24 allows appeals against ERO orders [2]. A 2008 amendment added a first appeal within the district [3].
• Judicial backstop: the Supreme Court has orally said that restoration appeals should be heard first [1].

Where they fall short

• No disposal deadline: Section 24 sets a time limit only for filing an appeal, not for deciding it [2]. Petitioners estimate a 12+ year backlog [1].
• Capacity mismatch: about 2 lakh appeals per tribunal, with 37.05 lakh pending [1].
• Irreversible harm: Section 23(3) freezes the roll after the last date for nominations [2]. A decision that comes after that date cannot give back a vote already lost.
• Vague grounds: deletions for "logical discrepancies" do not tell voters what they must prove [1].
• Mixed queue: over 22 lakh restoration appeals compete with 16.10 lakh objections to inclusion [1].

Reforms to make remedies time-bound

• Statutory timelines: amend Section 24 to set a disposal deadline for each tier, with deemed restoration if the deadline is missed.
• Priority listing: hear restoration appeals before objections, as the Court suggested [1].
• Capacity planned in advance: after Assam's NRC, the Centre extended the appeal window to 120 days and promised adequate tribunals and legal aid [5]. The appeal system must be sized before a mass revision begins.
• Batch decisions: decide common questions once, for example whether a data mismatch alone justifies deletion. EROs can then re-verify mismatches in bulk.
• Reasoned orders: a specific written reason for every deletion.
• Interim protection: let appellants deleted only for data mismatches vote provisionally. This relief must come before the Article 243ZG bar on court interference in municipal polls applies [4].

The appeal framework is sound in design but fails on speed and scale. Fixed deadlines, enough tribunals and interim protection would keep rolls clean without silencing genuine voters. This would honour the inclusive promise of Articles 325–326 and SDG 16's goal of accountable, inclusive institutions.