West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court grants one-week extension
Challenge to the ECI’s Revision of Electoral Rolls in BiharJudges: Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi J, N.V. Anjaria J
On 9 February, the Supreme Court extended the timeline for completion of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal by one week. The SIR will conclude a week after 14 February. It clarified that only Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are authorised to take final decisions on claims and objections. Micro observers can only assist EROs and cannot pass orders. In the previous hearing, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had alleged that the micro-observers were appointed from states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The directions were made by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria. The West Bengal government, the Election Commission of India and several intervenors made submissions on the manner in which the SIR was conducted.
Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Kalyan Banerjee, P.C. Sen and Dr Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the state and other petitioners.
Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu appeared for the ECI. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India. Senior Advocate V. Giri appeared for the Sanatan Sansad.
Divan: Mass exclusions will be irreversible after 14 February
Divan submitted that 32 lakh voters are unmapped and 1.36 crore voters are in the Logical Discrepancy (LD) list. Further, 6.75 crore voters were mapped—meaning that they can be traced to the 2002 electoral rolls. He argued that there was a “tremendous urgency” for the reliefs sought as the SIR process was scheduled to conclude on 14 February.
Divan reiterated that more than half of the LD cases are due to minor spelling variations, such as Dutta–Datta and Roy–Ray.
He argued that once there is a final electoral list followed by a notification for the Assembly elections that would be the “end of the story”. He warned, “There cannot be mass exclusion and purging of names.”
Singhvi: State provided trained officers, ECI sidelined them
Singhvi submitted that until 4 February, the State had provided approximately 80,000 Booth Level Officers (BLOs)and over 8,000 officers. These were Group B officers trained in election work. Previously, Dwivedi had argued that micro-observers were deployed as the state had provided no man-power.
Singhvi submitted that the ECI had deputed micro observers from outside Bengal, including individuals unfamiliar with the State’s language, culture and administrative conditions. These micro observers were, according to Singhvi, effectively performing the role of BLOs.
Responding to this, CJI Surya Kant observed that if the state had deputed these officers earlier, the ECI would likely have approved them. Singhvi reiterated that no request for Group B officers had been made by the ECI prior to the earlier hearing.
Divan added that on 7 February, the State had communicated its readiness to depute 8,555 Group B officers. The Chief, however, observed that “only names will not do” and that proper deputation required full particulars so that officers could report to the district electoral machinery. Ideally, he remarked, this should have been completed when the statement was made before the Court on 4 February.
ECI: SIR requires adjudicatory experience
Naidu argued that the ECI needed 300 Group B officers, and only 80 were provided. The remaining officers were of the Class C staff. He submitted that the SIR exercise requires officers who are capable of discharging quasi-judicial functions, since EROs pass orders on claims and objections which are open to appellate scrutiny.
Former West Bengal Chief Secretary Manoj Pant, who was present in the Court, clarified that all 294 EROs in the State are Group A officers, including SDMs, SDOs and some IAS officers. He further stated that there are three to four AEROs per constituency, amounting to around 8,500 AEROs, of whom approximately 65% are Group B officers, 10% Group C and the remaining Group A. AEROs, he clarified, are appointed by the ECI.
Naidu expressed reservations about absorbing 8,555 officers at a later stage, citing the need for training, issuance of IDs and provision of software access, particularly with the 14 February deadline approaching.
Justice Bagchi: Software assumptions ignore ground realities
Justice Bagchi expressed concern over the scale at which notices were being generated through software tools. “The ground reality is that with the application of software the notices are being sent on a wider basis,” he observed.
He noted that assumptions such as a 50-year age gap between parents and children ignored social realities, particularly where marriages occur at a younger age. Referring to Bengali naming conventions, Justice Bagchi observed that “Kumar is a middle name in Bengali households”, and that discrepancies such as “Tapan Kumar Roy” appearing as “Tapan Roy” were triggering LD notices. He remarked that the tools being applied were “very restrictive”.
Anonymous objections, Form 7 and deadline
Sankaranarayanan submitted that 1.36 crore voters had been affected by the LD process and argued that the final roll should not be published on 14 February.
Banerjee submitted that bundles of objections were being filed anonymously, sometimes running into thousands. He argued that objectors must remain present at hearings.
Sen submitted that while Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 permits a special revision, it prescribes no deadline and until such revision is completed, the existing electoral roll continues to operate.
Giri alleged burning of Form 7 objection forms and sought extension of time to file objections. The CJI noted that the Court had already issued directions to the State DGP to examine such allegations and observed that the “ECI was not helpless”.
Mehta relied on the ECI’s affidavit alleging threats, violence and non-registration of FIRs despite complaints. He urged the Court to send a clear message that “the Constitution applies to all states.” However, the state denied the allegations.
Court’s directions
After hearing the parties, and noting that a fresh set of State officers had now been made available, the Court issued the following interim directions:
- All 8,555 Group B officers, whose list was handed over to the ECI, shall report to the District Electoral Officers.
- The ECI shall have the discretion to replace existing EROs or AEROs and to utilise the services of the deputed State officers if satisfied with their qualifications.
- After briefly examining their biodata and work experience, the deputed officers may be imparted brief training of one or two days to enable them to assist in the SIR process.
- Micro observers and deputed State officials shall only assist and final decisions on claims and objections shall be taken by the EROs alone.
- In view of the induction of new officers and the time required for scrutiny, one additional week beyond 14 February was granted to complete scrutiny and take decisions.
The Court also directed the Director General of Police of West Bengal to file an affidavit responding to the ECI’s allegations regarding violence, non-registration of FIRs and destruction of objection records. The matter is listed next on 25 February.