West Bengal Electoral Roll Data Challenges TMC Allegations of Systematic Voter Deletion

The Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Congress party, and the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) have recently raised allegations concerning voter deletions and additions during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of West Bengal’s electoral rolls. The political opposition has alleged that the exercise was manipulated to systematically benefit the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Specifically, the TMC raised two primary allegations: the targeted deletion of voters through the SIR and the wrongful addition of outside voters from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

However, constituency-level figures cited by political commentator Rishi Bagree present a challenge to these claims. Analyzing data from the electoral revision, Bagree highlighted patterns across the five constituencies with the highest and lowest deletions, as well as the five with the highest and lowest additions, suggesting that the outcomes do not support the narrative of systematic manipulation in favor of the BJP.

High-Deletion Constituencies Won by Trinamool Congress

According to the data cited by Bagree, which is attributed to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the five constituencies that recorded the highest number of voter deletions were all won by the TMC. These constituencies—Sujapur, Raghunathganj, Samserganj, Ratua, and Suti—are located in the Malda and Murshidabad districts.

In Sujapur, for instance, the electoral roll published on February 28 recorded 1,50,410 deletions. However, subsequent updates reported on October 8 showed that 1,14,766 of those names were restored before the deadline for filing nominations. Despite the high volume of initial deletions in these five areas, the TMC secured victories in all of them.

Conversely, the five constituencies that recorded the lowest number of deletions—Sabang, Khejuri (SC), Bhagabanpur, Raipur (ST), and Katulpur—were all won by the BJP. This distribution challenges the argument that the absolute number of deletions alone provided a systematic electoral advantage to the BJP, as the party accused of benefiting did not win the seats with the highest deletions, while the party alleging wrongdoing won all five.

Voter Additions Show Similar Patterns

The allegations also extended to the wrongful addition of voters, with claims that electors from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were being registered on West Bengal’s rolls to influence the election. However, the constituency-level data for additions after the publication of the final SIR roll presents a different pattern.

According to Bagree’s analysis, the five constituencies recording the highest number of voter additions were all won by the I.N.D.I. Alliance, with four seats going to the TMC and one to the Congress. Meanwhile, the five constituencies with the lowest number of additions were won by the BJP.

While these aggregate figures challenge the narrative that voter additions systematically benefited the BJP, they do not independently verify the geographical origin of newly registered electors. Establishing claims of fraudulent registration or the illegal enrolment of outsiders requires specific evidence regarding individual electors and compliance with electoral laws, which cannot be determined solely by constituency-level totals.

The 27 Lakh Adjudication Cases and Seat Projections

In addition to the constituency rankings, Bagree presented a hypothetical calculation concerning approximately 27 lakh electors who were removed following adjudication. He proposed a scenario where all 27 lakh removed electors were restored across every constituency and assumed that every single one of them voted for the TMC.

According to Bagree's seat-wise analysis under this hypothetical scenario, the BJP would still remain ahead of the TMC in 181 constituencies, which is well above the majority mark. While this calculation assumes a uniform voting preference and universal restoration—neither of which reflects actual electoral conditions—it raises questions about whether the disputed adjudication cases alone could account for the overall election outcome. Verifying this claim requires independent reproduction using the underlying constituency-wise data and tables.

Former High Court Judge Defends Independence of SIR

Commenting on the controversy, Justice P.N. Ravindran, a former judge of the Kerala High Court, defended the integrity of the Special Intensive Revision process. Speaking to the news agency ANI, Justice Ravindran noted that the current SIR is the ninth edition of the exercise, which has been conducted eight times previously, including during periods when the Congress Party was in power.

"Special Intensive Revision is the ninth edition of the SIR. It has happened earlier—eight times it has happened. Even when the Congress Party was in power, it happened. Doesn’t mean that the Congress Party controlled the Election Commission. No," Justice Ravindran stated. He emphasized that the primary objective of the exercise is to maintain a clean and valid electoral roll, which is a fundamental requirement for any election.

Justice Ravindran further described the Election Commission as an insulated body that is not controlled by the government, noting that its charter was established decades ago during the framing of the Constitution. He added that individual voters whose names are deleted have legal avenues for redress. "If I am a voter and my name is deleted, it is for me to work out my remedies. I don’t go to the streets and fight. I go to the authority, namely the courts, and seek redressal of my grievances," he said.

The official website of the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal continues to host the SIR final roll, deletion lists, supplementary lists, and related records, which serve as the official basis for verifying electoral data as the political debate over the revision continues.