Appellate Tribunal directed to grant out-of-turn hearing for urgent disposal of voter list exclusion appeal.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the SIR Appellate Tribunal should be directed to accord an out-of-turn or expedited hearing for the petitioner’s appeal due to his professional exigencies and immigration requirements

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by requesting the SIR Appellate Tribunal to decide the petitioner’s SIR Appeal as expeditiously as possible.

It also directed

No order was made as to costs, and the parties were directed to act upon the server copy of the judgment.

01Facts

The petitioner, a mason working in Bhutan, challenged the deletion of his name from the Voters’ List on March 27, 2026

p. 2

The petitioner asserted that without a valid citizenship document or inclusion in the Voters' List, he would be unable to provide necessary credentials to his employer or pass immigration checkpoints at the Bhutan border under prevailing rules

p. 2

Consequently, he filed an "SIR Appeal" (No. APS2501G310326226346) which remained pending

p. 2

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for the expedited disposal of said appeal

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the SIR Appellate Tribunal should be directed to accord an out-of-turn or expedited hearing for the petitioner’s appeal due to his professional exigencies and immigration requirements

pp. 2-3

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding its writ jurisdiction.

pp. 2-3

Applied the precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Monowara Khatun vs. ECI & Ors. (WP(C) 496/2026) and Mostari Banu vs. ECI & Ors. (WP(C) 1089/2025).

pp. 2-3

These precedents established that individuals aggrieved by exclusion from voter lists in the SIR process may seek urgent administrative or judicial intervention, and Appellate Tribunals may be requested to grant out-of-turn hearings based on the urgency of the matter.

p. 3

04Reasoning

The Court examined the petitioner’s work permit and contract (Annexures P5 and P16), noting the urgency created by his employment in Bhutan.

p. 2

Applying the ratio from the Supreme Court orders in Monowara Khatun and Mostari Banu, the Court recognized that the petitioner's inability to prove citizenship status at immigration or to his employer constituted sufficient urgency.

p. 3

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the voter list deletion, the Court focused on the procedural remedy of "out-of-turn" disposal specifically permitted by the Apex Court for SIR-related appeals.

p. 3