Another retired judge resigns from Bengal SIR tribunal

1. At a Glance

• Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a full re-verification of the electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India (ECI). In West Bengal it led to large-scale deletion of voters. Appeals against these deletions go to 19 appellate tribunals, each headed by a retired Calcutta High Court judge [1].
• On 7 Nov 2026, Justice (retd.) Biswajit Basu became the fourth judge to resign from these tribunals. This raises questions about whether the tribunals can clear about 38 lakh appeals [1].
• The issue matters for UPSC because it links several themes: the right to vote, ECI's powers, Supreme Court oversight using Article 142, judges taking post-retirement jobs, and whether quasi-judicial bodies have enough capacity.

2. Why in the News

• On Saturday, 7 Nov 2026, retired Calcutta HC judge Biswajit Basu resigned from a West Bengal SIR tribunal, citing personal reasons. He sent his resignation to Calcutta HC Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge [1].
• He had earlier said: "Resolving lakhs of cases in this manner is a little difficult. Since this has been done on the directions of Supreme Court, it has to be carried out" [1].
• The Suvendu Adhikari-led State government has also appointed him chairman of the Commission on Institutional Corruption [1].
• Three judges resigned before him [1]:
• former Calcutta HC Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam
• Justice Ranjit Kumar Bagh

• Justice Indrajit Chatterjee

• Judges heading the tribunals have complained about the slow pace at which pending applications are being decided [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• SIR exercise: The ECI ran a Special Intensive Revision of West Bengal's electoral rolls, and a large number of voters were deleted [1].
• Litigation: A PIL on the SIR is being heard in the Supreme Court, Court No. 1. Orders are on record for 19 Jan 2026 [5] and 13 Apr 2026 [3].
• Tribunals set up: The ECI constituted the appellate tribunals to hear appeals on inclusion or exclusion of voters, following Supreme Court directions [1][7].
• Milestones in chronological order:
• 19 Jan 2026: Supreme Court hearing in the SIR PIL [5].
• Apr 2026: A plea against the ECI's freeze of the voter roll was listed for hearing on 13 Apr [9].
• 13 Apr 2026: Using Article 142, the Supreme Court directed that tribunal decisions be given effect through a supplementary revised electoral roll, for appeals decided by the dates it set [3][9].
• 20 Apr 2026: Petitioners alleged the tribunals were "not functioning". The Supreme Court asked the Calcutta HC Chief Justice for a report, to be filed the same day [7][11].
• May 2026: The Supreme Court held that the ECI may examine citizenship only to decide eligibility for the electoral roll. Where needed, it must refer the case to the competent Central Government authority [7].
• 17 Jul 2026: The Supreme Court issued notice on pleas seeking constituency-wise SIR data and faster disposal of appeals [8][10].
• 11 & 25 Aug 2026: The Supreme Court directed the ECI to submit data on how many appeals are pending and how many have been decided [2][4][6].
• 7 Nov 2026: The fourth judge resigned [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Exercise	Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls [1]
Conducting body	Election Commission of India [1]
Appellate forum	19 appellate tribunals in West Bengal. Some reports say 18 [1][7]
Who heads them	Retired judges of the Calcutta High Court [1]
What they hear	Appeals on inclusion or exclusion of voters in the rolls [1]
Total appeals	About 38 lakh [1][4]
ECI's breakdown of appeals	About 7 lakh by excluded voters; about 31 lakh are objections to inclusions [4][6]
Petitioners' claim	Tribunals restored names in about 70% of cases decided so far [8][10]
Supreme Court power used	Article 142 (to do "complete justice"), used to order supplementary revised rolls [3]
Judges who resigned (4)	T.S. Sivagnanam, Ranjit Kumar Bagh, Indrajit Chatterjee, Biswajit Basu [1]
Calcutta HC Chief Justice	Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge [1]

• Static constitutional framework. This comes from the standard text, not the retrieved sources; verify before use:
• Art. 324: the ECI superintends, directs and controls the preparation of electoral rolls.
• Art. 326: elections are held on the basis of adult suffrage.
• Representation of the People Act, 1950, Sec. 21: governs preparation and revision of rolls, including special revision under Sec. 21(3).

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The Supreme Court used Article 142 to make tribunal decisions take effect through supplementary rolls. This shows the judiciary stepping into election administration [3].
• The May 2026 ruling separates two questions. The ECI may check eligibility for the roll, but deciding citizenship belongs to the competent Central Government authority [7].
• The forum is a quasi-judicial tribunal created on court direction. It does not come from a statute, which leaves its procedural basis less firm. A three-member panel of former judges was asked to frame uniform procedures [7].

Administrative

• The numbers are lopsided: 19 tribunals against about 38 lakh appeals. Basu himself called this "a little difficult" [1].
• Four resignations so far disrupt the tribunals' work. The Supreme Court has said "If need be, we will appoint more tribunals" [6].
• The Court wants the data separated into exclusion appeals and inclusion objections, so that it can see where the backlog really lies [4][6].

Social

• Voters wrongly deleted may lose their franchise while their appeals wait. The petitioners' claim of about 70% restoration suggests many deletions were wrong [8][10].
• Poor, migrant and minority voters are likely to struggle most with paperwork. This is an analytical inference, not a sourced fact.

Ethical / Governance

• Post-retirement appointments: Basu has resigned from a tribunal set up by the Supreme Court and the ECI, while also accepting a post from the State government [1]. This revives the debate on judicial independence and "cooling-off periods".
• Transparency: A PIL is seeking constituency-wise SIR data from the ECI [8].

Federal / Political

• The issue sits between the ECI (a central constitutional body), the State government, and the Calcutta HC Chief Justice, who supervises the tribunals [1][11].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 19 Jan 2026: Supreme Court order in the SIR PIL [5].
• 13 Apr 2026: Article 142 direction to issue supplementary revised rolls [3].
• 20 Apr 2026: Same-day report sought from the Calcutta HC Chief Justice on tribunals said to be non-functional [7][11].
• 17 Jul 2026: Notice issued to the ECI and the West Bengal government on pleas for data transparency and speedy disposal [8][10].
• 11 Aug 2026: Supreme Court sought the status of appeals [2].
• 25 Aug 2026: ECI told to submit pendency and disposal data. Its counsel gave the 7 lakh / 31 lakh breakdown [4][6].
• 7 Nov 2026: Justice (retd.) Biswajit Basu resigned, the fourth resignation [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• West Bengal has 19 SIR appellate tribunals, each headed by a retired Calcutta HC judge [1].
• The tribunals were constituted by the ECI, not by the State government, following Supreme Court directions [1].
• They have about 38 lakh appeals to hear [1].
• By the ECI's account, only about 7 lakh appeals come from excluded voters. About 31 lakh are objections to inclusions [4].
• The Supreme Court used Article 142 to order supplementary revised electoral rolls [3].
• Supreme Court position (May 2026): the ECI examines citizenship only for eligibility for the roll. Adjudication goes to the competent Central authority [7].
• T.S. Sivagnanam, a former Calcutta HC Chief Justice, was among the first to resign [1].
• Biswajit Basu was the fourth to resign. He sent his resignation to the Calcutta HC Chief Justice [1].
• The Calcutta HC Chief Justice is Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge [1].
• The State government appointed Basu chairman of the Commission on Institutional Corruption [1].
• Petitioners claim tribunals restored names in about 70% of decided cases [8].

8. Why 19 Tribunals Cannot Clear 38 Lakh Appeals

• Each tribunal has an impossible load
• About 38 lakh appeals shared by 19 tribunals means roughly 2 lakh appeals for each one [1].
• In August 2026, a petitioner told the Supreme Court that only about 38,000 appeals had been decided out of nearly 34 lakh filed. That is close to 1% [4][6].

• At this speed, the backlog will take years to clear, while elections follow fixed dates.

• The tribunals are much smaller than the earlier stage of the same exercise

• At the claims-and-objections stage, the Supreme Court sent about 700 judicial officers from West Bengal, Odisha and Jharkhand to handle around 60 lakh claims [12].
• The appeal stage has 38 lakh cases but only 19 retired judges [1].

• So the stage that most needs careful legal reasoning got the fewest people.

• Every resignation stops one tribunal's work completely

• One retired judge heads each tribunal. When that judge leaves, the tribunal's cases wait until the Calcutta HC Chief Justice finds a replacement [1].

• With four judges gone, about one-fifth of the 19 posts have changed hands while the backlog keeps growing [1].

• The forum depends on retired judges who can walk away

• A retired judge on a short assignment can resign for "personal reasons" at any time [1]. Serving judicial officers cannot do this easily.

• The Supreme Court has itself criticised short tribunal terms filled by retired people. It said they turn tribunals into "post-retirement havens" (comfortable jobs after retirement) instead of committed institutions [16].

• Check before you write: who set up the tribunals?

• The note follows [1] and says the ECI constituted them.
• Some reports say the Calcutta HC Chief Justice set them up and chose the judges [6].
• In an answer, write that they were set up on Supreme Court direction, with the Calcutta HC Chief Justice choosing and supervising the judges [1][11].

9. Delay Costs the Excluded Voter, Not the Included One

• The 38 lakh backlog is two different problems
• About 7 lakh appeals come from people whose names were removed. About 31 lakh are objections to names that are still on the roll [4].
• While an objection is pending, that voter stays on the roll and can still vote.
• While an exclusion appeal is pending, that voter cannot vote.

• So delay does real harm only to the 7 lakh excluded voters, even though they are the smaller group.

• Only appeals decided in time get back on the roll

• Under Article 142, a tribunal's decision takes effect through a supplementary revised roll (an extra list added to the main roll). This applies only to appeals decided by the dates the Court set [3].

• An excluded voter whose appeal is still pending gets nothing from this order.

• The Court saw the problem but gave no interim relief

• In April 2026, the Supreme Court noted that exclusion in the Bengal revision was high. It still denied relief [13].

• Interim protection (temporary relief while a case is pending) would have let voters stay on the roll until their appeals were decided. Without it, a slow tribunal means a lost vote.

• What the 70% figure shows, and what it does not

• Petitioners say about 70% of decided appeals restored names [8][10].
• That figure comes from only about 38,000 decided cases, a very small part of the total [4][6].
• It also comes from one side of the case, not from audited ECI data.
• Still, if even part of it holds, many people were removed wrongly. The burden of proving they belong on the roll then falls on them, not on the state.

10. The Case That the Court Has Already Done Enough

• The strongest argument against more court action
• Article 324 gives the ECI, not the courts, control over electoral rolls (static text).
• The Supreme Court has already sent judicial officers [12], used Article 142 [3], asked for same-day reports [11] and demanded pendency data [4].

• Doing more, such as running the tribunals or setting deadlines, would turn the Court into an election administrator. That weakens the separation of powers (each branch keeping to its own work).

• What this argument gets right

• Courts are not built to process lakhs of individual voter files. Each new direction brings more hearings, not more decisions.

• The Court has been careful. It left citizenship decisions to the competent Central authority instead of deciding them itself [7].

• Where it falls short

• The Court created this forum when it directed the tribunals to be set up [1][7]. Having created it, the Court shares the responsibility if it fails.
• The Court has said "If need be, we will appoint more tribunals" [6]. But it has not yet done so, even as the judges it relied on keep resigning [1].
• So the issue is not too much court action. Having stepped in, the Court has not given the forum enough capacity to work.

11. The Post-Retirement Job Problem Was Flagged Years Ago

• Basu's case shows the conflict, though no wrongdoing is alleged
• He left a tribunal created on Supreme Court direction. At the same time, the State government made him chairman of its Commission on Institutional Corruption [1].
• He gave personal reasons, and there is no allegation against him [1].

• But voters cannot easily tell whether the State post shaped his decision. Doubt alone hurts trust in the tribunals.

• Parliament's committees have warned about this before

• In 2010, a Rajya Sabha committee noted that some judges nearing retirement seek tribunal and commission posts for job security after retirement. It recommended that this practice be stopped [15].
• In 2013, a parliamentary committee on the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill recommended a cooling-off period of ten years before retired judges take posts in commissions and tribunals [14].

• A cooling-off period is a fixed waiting time before a retired official can take a new government job.

• No rule has followed

• There is still no clear legal cooling-off rule for judges in India. The 2013 recommendation remained only a recommendation [14].
• The Supreme Court in 2025 also criticised tribunal service rules that make these posts feel like rewards after retirement [16].

12. What the Court, the ECI and Parliament Can Do Next

• Supreme Court: add capacity using serving judicial officers
• The Court has already said it may appoint more tribunals [6].
• In February 2026 it used about 700 serving judicial officers at the claims stage [12]. The same model could add benches at the appeal stage.

• Serving officers are bound by service rules and are less likely to resign in the middle of the work.

• Tribunals and ECI: hear exclusion appeals first

• The 7 lakh exclusion appeals are the cases where a person cannot vote [4]. Taking them before the 31 lakh objections would protect the most votes for the same effort.

• The Court already wants the data split into these two types [4][6]. That split can be used to decide which cases to hear first.

• ECI: publish pendency data for each constituency

• A PIL already asks for constituency-wise SIR data [8].

• Regular public figures on cases filed, decided and restored would let anyone check the 70% claim, instead of relying on petitioners' numbers [8][10].

• Parliament and the Centre: act on the 2013 committee's cooling-off recommendation

• A fixed cooling-off period for retired judges, as recommended in 2013 [14], would keep State government posts away from judges handling politically sensitive work.

• Parliament: give SIR appeals a basis in law

• The tribunals exist because of court directions, not a statute [7]. The next SIR will need the same arrangement again, unless the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is amended to provide a standing appeal system with timelines.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: About 38,000 of nearly 34 lakh appeals decided by Aug 2026, close to 1% disposal [4][6]
• Data: 7 lakh exclusion appeals vs 31 lakh objections to inclusion. Delay costs the vote only in the first group [4]
• Data: About 700 judicial officers deployed for about 60 lakh claims at the earlier stage, vs 19 tribunals at the appeal stage [12][1]
• Report/Committee: Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2013. It recommended a 10-year cooling-off period before retired judges take tribunal or commission posts [14]
• Report/Committee: Rajya Sabha committee on the Constitution (114th Amendment) Bill, 2010. It flagged judges seeking post-retirement tribunal posts [15]
• Law/Case: Supreme Court judgment, 19 Nov 2025 (2025 INSC 1330). It warned that short tribunal terms make tribunals "post-retirement havens" [16]
• Law/Case: Supreme Court order of 13 Apr 2026 under Article 142 on supplementary revised rolls [3]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II:
• Polity: Representation of the People Act; constitutional bodies (ECI)
• Judiciary: Article 142, judicial overreach versus activism

• Statutory, regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies (tribunals)

• GS-IV: Integrity of public servants; conflict of interest in post-retirement appointments.

• Possible question stems: 1. "Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls balances purity of rolls against the universal franchise." Critically examine with reference to recent experience in West Bengal. (250 words) 2. Discuss the use of Article 142 in election administration. Does it strengthen electoral justice or blur the separation of powers? (150 words) 3. Repeated resignations of retired judges from court-mandated tribunals point to deeper problems of capacity and post-retirement appointments. Analyse. (150 words)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 324 and ECI independence: this is the source of the ECI's power to revise rolls.
• RPA 1950 vs RPA 1951: the 1950 Act covers electoral rolls; the 1951 Act covers the conduct of elections and election disputes.
• Article 142 jurisprudence: the "complete justice" power and its limits.
• Citizenship Act, 1955 and Foreigners Tribunals: these separate citizenship adjudication from roll eligibility.
• Bihar SIR 2025: the earlier SIR, which set the template for the Supreme Court litigation.
• Tribunalisation and the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021: the wider debate on tribunal independence and capacity.
• Post-retirement appointments of judges: debates on cooling-off periods.
• Election Commissioners Act, 2023: the appointment process and ECI credibility.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Special Intensive Revision (Polity): The voter-roll re-verification exercise whose mass deletions led to the appeals and tribunals at the centre of the article.
• Complete justice power (Polity): Article 142 is the power the Supreme Court used to order supplementary rolls giving effect to tribunal decisions.
• Appellate tribunal (Polity): The resigning judges head court-directed appellate tribunals; capacity and backlog of such quasi-judicial bodies is the core issue.
• Election Commission of India (Polity): ECI ran the SIR, constituted the tribunals, and must supply pendency data to the Supreme Court.
• Representation of the People Act 1950 (Polity): This Act governs preparation and revision of electoral rolls, a point the note flags as a common mix-up.
• Right to vote (Polity): Wrongly deleted voters risk losing their franchise while appeals remain pending, which makes this the central rights concern.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Who constituted the tribunals: the ECI did, on Supreme Court direction. It was not the State government or the High Court [1].
• Counting the tribunals: 19 is the figure in the triggering article [1]. Some reports say 18 [7]. Use 19.
• What the 38 lakh appeals are: they are not all deletion appeals. The ECI says about 31 lakh are objections to inclusions [4].
• Citizenship: the ECI does not decide citizenship. It checks only eligibility for the roll [7].
• The two RPAs: electoral rolls fall under RPA 1950, while elections and their disputes fall under RPA 1951. Aspirants often mix them up.