Add The Wire As Your Trusted Source
For the best experience, open
https://m.thewire.in
on your mobile browser.
HomePoliticsEconomyWorldSecurityLawScienceSocietyCultureEditors-PickVideo
AdvertisementAdvertisement
home / Government

The West Bengal Election Is Over. Why Are Questions Over Rolls, Turnout Data and Process Persisting?

When changes to electoral rolls and gaps in transparency coincide in a single election, trust in the democratic process comes under severe strain.
article_Author
The Wire Staff
  • whatsapp
  • fb
  • twitter
When changes to electoral rolls and gaps in transparency coincide in a single election, trust in the democratic process comes under severe strain.
the west bengal election is over why are questions over rolls turnout data and process persisting
Representational image of strict surveillance by armed central forces during and before the West Bengal election, 2026. Photo: PTI.
Advertisement

New Delhi: An election is ordinarily considered complete when the last voter in the queue at a polling station has cast their ballot. What follows is a period of waiting – for counting, results and then the verdict. In West Bengal, however, the close of polling has not brought closure.

A day after voting concluded, political leaders, transparency advocates and former officials have continued to raise concerns about the conduct of the election itself. Their focus is on the role of the Election Commission of India and the use of central agencies during the process in Bengal.

"Why is Bengal being treated like a state that has been invaded? ... The conduct of this election shows an institutional effort to capture a state through fear, using central agencies and forces," said Aaditya Thackeray of the Shiv Sena (UBT), who is president of its youth wing, Yuva Sena, on X on the afternoon of April 29, just as voting in Bengal crossed the halfway mark.

At the heart of their concern is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a process mandated ahead of polls across several states and Union Territories, but whose implementation in Bengal resulted in close to 90 lakh names removed from the electoral rolls, many of them concentrated in border areas and non-elite rural caste and minority-heavy districts.

Advertisement

Of these, roughly 27 lakh individuals filed appeals. Just about 1,400 voters were able to secure relief through tribunals set up to review such cases, leaving almost all applicants without restoration of voting rights.

The SIR process, and changes in how it was applied in West Bengal, altered the conditions under which the election was held. This is why concerns about the process followed by the Election Commission while going about its primary duty – ensuring free and fair polls – persist even after the polling has ended.

Advertisement

Also read: In Bengal SIR, 'Logical Discrepancy' Became the Election Commission's Alibi for Mass Voter Exclusion

And it is also why the concerns being expressed go beyond the usual jostling during counting day between the ruling party and the possible challengers (though that is also happening simultaneously in Bengal).

Advertisement

“The Election Commission must immediately upload Form 17C for each polling booth and declare how many tokens were distributed at 6 pm. That is the minimum level of transparency expected in such a fraught election,” transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj posted on the evening of April 30.

Advertisement

Form 17C is the statutory record of votes polled at each booth. It is generated when polling ends and includes the total number of votes recorded on the EVM. It ties directly to how many people were actually allowed to vote, including those still in queue at closing time.

That is where the token system comes in. At 6 pm, election officials issue numbered slips to every voter still waiting to vote. Only those with tokens are allowed to vote after this time. This means the final turnout figure is not an "estimate", but a recorded number that is available booth by booth at the close of polling.

As former chief election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi has been stressing since April 23, the day of the first phase of the Bengal polls, "Exact numbers are known, polling station wise, as numbered chits are distributed at the end of polling."

The reason experts and politicians are suddenly voicing similar concerns is simple: after an election in which there were large scale deletions from voting lists, the least expected safeguard of a free and fair electoral process would be prompt disclosure of how many people actually voted.

But this has not happened. Even as questions are raised, the Election Commission has released turnout only in percentage terms. For Phase 1 of the Bengal election, it reported a turnout of 91.78%, but has not published the underlying voter counts at the constituency or booth level that would show how many people actually voted.

Similarly, for Phase 2 of the election, it has revealed 92.67% overall voter turnout and district  and assembly seat-wise data, also in percentages, but shared none of the underlying data.

Exit pollster?

Pollster Axis My India said it would not release estimates for the West Bengal election because the response levels and data quality did not meet its "internal thresholds". According to a press release it issued, the data environment in Bengal was so distorted that even a large, structured survey could not produce results that meet the basic standards of statistical reliability.

Axis My India uses words and phrases such as "atypical", "statistically significant challenge" and "non-response bias" (more than 70% would not respond to queries posed to them as they walked out of the booths) in the release. It also refers to "selective disclosure" and "silent" voter behaviour.

The press release does not make political claims. However, it does reinforce that independent measurement of the voter's mood became impossible. The agency revealed its findings for all other elections, in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry.

Thackeray wrote in his post that the Union government moved central forces into Bengal by the millions, "to try and scare Bengal, redeploying them from where they were posted to protect our country and ensuring peace in troubled areas..."

So was the voter silence explained by anti-incumbency against the powerful Mamata Banerjee government, or the fear of lakhs of central forces deployed in the state? What did they keep secret?

State force and probe

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bharadwaj pointed to developments in a money laundering case involving political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee.

The Enforcement Directorate has accused the firm of financial irregularities involving transactions worth around Rs 50 crore. A Delhi court granted bail to its director Vinesh Chandel on Thursday (April 30), noting that the directorate, a wing of the Union finance ministry, did not oppose the plea.

This prompted Bharadwaj to link the timing to the conclusion of polling in Bengal."iPAC founder & director gets bail in PMLA matter today , just a day after West Bengal Elections. ED did not oppose the bail for obvious reasons else bail from a lower court is unthinkable in 15 days," he wrote on X on the morning on April 30.

Several leaders of AAP have been probed by the Enforcement Directorate in the last few years, and they have struggled (often for years) to secure bail. "My request to BJP/RSS supporters to introspect, because those enjoying the fruits of power will not," he said in a video message he posted.

Before the release of the iPAC official, former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Akhilesh Yadav said in Kolkata on Tuesday (April 28), that "in states where BJP feels it cannot win elections, it sends these agencies."

Opposition concern over Bengal

"Are Bengalis not being trusted," asked National Conference president Abdullah on Wednesday while he criticised the Election Commission for the deployment of a large contingent of central forces and bureaucrats in the state, the Times of India reported. Speaking to PTI, Abdullah reportedly said, "If you want a strong India, Bengalis have the right to choose their leadership without being coerced towards any other direction."

A related development has come in from the Calcutta High Court, which has declined to intervene, on a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress, in the Election Commission’s decision on the appointment of counting personnel.

The court held on Thursday that it is the Election Commission's prerogative to appoint counting supervisors and assistants from the state government or Union government: if it chooses officials from Union government departments or public sector units instead of state government staff, that did not imply illegality.

The piling up of concerns – from political parties (and not just those contesting in Bengal), transparency advocates and even former government officials – centres on the same question: what happens when changes to electoral rolls and lack of transparency coincide in a single election?

Former IAS officer K.B.S Sidhu has suggested that what happened in Bengal may not be limited to that state alone. Writing on X, he said the SIR, if (or when) followed by the delimitation plan of the Union government, could change how representation works for decades. While voters might still have a chance to return to the rolls, once constituencies are redrawn at the national level, turning back the clock would become virtually impossible.

This article went live on April thirtieth, two thousand twenty six, at fifty-five minutes past ten at night.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Series tlbr_img2 Columns tlbr_img3 Multimedia