West Bengal SIR | SC issues notice on Mamata Banerjee’s plea

Divan: ‘Logical Discrepancy’ must be followed by reason

Divan opened submissions by referring to the Court’s 19 January order, which had directed transparency and adequate opportunity to voters placed in the Logical Discrepancy (LD) category. The LD list is a category of voters flagged due to alleged inconsistencies in personal particulars. He submitted that despite the Court granting an additional ten days, only four days now remain.

Divan submitted that 1.36 crore voters have been placed in the LD list, while approximately 32 lakh voters have been categorised as unmapped. He argued that hearings remain pending for about 63 lakh persons, making it impossible to complete the process within the stipulated time frame.

He further submitted that although the Court had directed disclosure of reasons for inclusion in the LD list, the ECI had uploaded only names, age and gender while the reasons column merely carried cryptic codes. Justice Bagchi observed that the ECI had informed the Court that reasons were available on the website. Divan responded that even minimal reasons were not reflected and voters were unaware of the basis of the notice.

Divan: Name mismatches form bulk of LD cases

Divan submitted that a significant portion of LD cases arose from minor spelling variations when Bengali names were translated into English. He stated that surnames such as Dutta and Datta, Roy and Ray and variations in parents’ names due to middle names or translation issues had led to notices being issued. He submitted that nearly 70 lakh LD cases were attributable to such minor mismatches and sought withdrawal of notices issued solely on this ground.

CJI Surya Kant responded that withdrawing notices already issued may not be practical. He observed that such dialect and spelling variations occur across the country and remarked that “by virtue of this kind of mistake, bona fide persons cannot be left out.”

Banerjee: SIR not for inclusion but for deletion

Banerjee submitted that the SIR exercise was being used only for deletion, not inclusion. She stated that women who change surnames after marriage or shift residence were being deleted from the rolls on the ground of mismatch. She contended that Aadhaar was not being accepted as a valid document by the ECI. This violated the directions passed by the Court on 8 September 2025 in the challenge to the Bihar SIR. The CJI responded that the Aadhaar “had its own limitations”. Interestingly, in the Bihar SIR matter, Dwivedi has submitted that SIRs carried out in other states had adopted the interim directions passed by the Court in the Bihar case.

She added that the ECI had not responded to any of the six letters that she had written to them. She further alleged that the exercise was being selectively carried out in West Bengal on the eve of elections. She questioned the pace at which the SIR was being carried out stating, “They want to do something in two months which takes two years?”

Chief Justice Surya Kant explained that the purpose of SIR was to weed out dead and disqualified persons. He, however, warned that such an exercise could not leave out genuine voters. Banerjee pleaded with the Bench to “protect the people’s rights.”

Banerjee: ECI is a “WhatsApp Commission”

Banerjee further alleged that micro observers had been appointed from BJP-ruled states, superseding the powers of Electoral Registration Officers (ERO) and Booth Level Officers (BLO). She claimed that 58 lakh voters were deleted in the first phase itself and that living persons had been declared dead.

She alleged that instructions were being issued informally and referred to the ECI as a “WhatsApp Commission.” The Chief responded that the Court would direct that all decisions and documents be authorised by the BLO.

ECI: State refused to cooperate

Dwivedi submitted that the ECI had repeatedly written to the state government seeking Group B officers for the SIR exercise. According to him, only around 80 officers were provided, compelling the ECI to appoint micro observers. He contended that the appointments were valid and necessitated by the state’s non-cooperation.

CJI Surya Kant observed that spelling and pronunciation variations occur pan-India. He suggested that the State could provide officers conversant in Bengali. This would assist the ECI in verification and tackle the issue at the ground level.

On the issue of Aadhaar, the Chief clarified that the Court could not comment on its evidentiary value since judgement on the legality of the SIR process had been reserved.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was in the Court, submitted that there was an atmosphere of hostility towards ECI officials in the State and requested that a related PIL seeking protection for ECI officials be listed along with the present matter.

The Court issued notice and directed the state to place on record a list of Group B officers it could spare for the SIR process.

The matter will now be heard on 9 February.