Breaking| Supreme Court Issues Show-Cause Notice To West Bengal DGP Over Violence Against Election Officials; Says It Won't Allow Any Impediment In SIR

The Supreme Court, today, in the matter related to the electoral revision process in West Bengal, issued a show-cause notice to the Director General of Police (DGP) in response to reports submitted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding widespread threats and violence directed at officials performing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duties.

The Court has also passed directions in order to streamline the ongoing process of SIR.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria ordered, "In order to streamline the ongoing process of SIR and also to review the apprehensions expressed by different stakeholders, we deem it appropriate to issue the following interim additional directions: i. Let the State Government assure 8505 officers who are listed, to report for duty to the district electoral officers (DRO) by tomorrow by 5 p.m...ii. ECI shall have the replacement of the EROs and AEROs and utilise the services of the present if found qualified...iii. Rest of the officials, the ECI after briefly scrutinizing their biodata and work experience, may shortlist these officers equivalent to the strength of micro observers already engaged...these officials may be imparted a brief training... iv. The responsibility assigned to micro observers or the State Government officials shall be to only assist the EROs as the final decision will be of the EROs;...v. Since a new set of Government officials has been inducted, the process of scrutinising documents submitted by affected persons is likely to take more time, and as suggested on behalf of some of the Petitioners, we direct that one week more time shall be granted beyond February 14 to the EROs to complete scrutiny and take a decision. The Election Commission of India has clarified that micro observers are not the decision-making authority and shall only assist the EROs."

Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan appeared for Mamata Banerjee, and Senior Advocate DS Naidu appeared for the Election Commission of India.

It was further ordered, "Mr. Giri and Learned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta have pointed out to the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Election Commission of India, where it is alleged that despite making complaints by election commission officials, no FIR was lodged against the persons who burnt the objection forms. Senior Advocate Guruswamy strongly objected to the same...We show cause Director General of Police to file his personal affidavit to explain his response to the counter affidavit by the ECI. We deem it appropriate for the DGP to explain this on his part."

The Court ordered, "We have heard Senior Counsels on behalf of the State of West Bengal, Petitioners and Senior Counsels for ECI and other learned Senior Counsels representing other parties...it may be noted at the outset that in the previous date of hearing Ms. Mamata Banerjee also appeared along with the Senior Counsels...On this, the Chief Minister made a statement that she was willing to provide adequate manpower. In compliance, it has been said that on Feb 7, it was informed ECI that the State Government was ready to provide officers of the State Government for SIR."

Diwan submitted that there are certain developments which have occurred during the weekend.

"First figure is that the draft electoral roll has approximately 7.08 electors on it. The second figure is out of this 6.75 crores are mapped, means is, each of this have been identified in the 2002 List...32 lakhs were unmapped, we are focusing on the mapped..., 1.36 crores were found to be inprocess which they called logical discrepancies...", Diwan submitted.

Diwan then referred to the previous order related to the Logoical Discrepancies passed by the Court on January 19, 2026. The Court had issued directions regarding the 1.25 crores voters in West Bengal falling in the category of 'Logistical Discrepancies'.

Chief Justice Kant said, "Ideally, when a statement was made before us on February 4 it should have been done then itself. Only names will not do. They have to report to the district collector, etc. You did not require any confirmation from the ECI."

Chief Justice asked Former Chief Secretary, "Mr Pant, can you please tell us that 300 names which were required to sent for the purpose of ERO, how many of them are group B?"

Pant replied, "They are all group A officers." He further added that all 294 EROs held Group A status—typically of SDO or SDM rank—with at least nine years of service. He explained that approximately 65% of them were Group B officers, while the remainder consisted of Group A and about 10% Group C staff.

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "Whatever orders or clarifications are required, we will issue. We will remove all the hurdles. But we will not allow any impediment in SIR. This must be understood by all states."

The Bench said that the current appointment of micro-observers created an anomalous situation regarding seniority and hierarchy.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan raised concerns about the potential consequences of this system, arguing that the large-scale purging of voter names should not be allowed to proceed under such conditions.

In response, the Court said that the micro-observers as a team intended to assist the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and their assistants (AEROs).

Senior Advocate Naidu for ECI explained that these observers serve an advisory role, providing guidance on which voter entries are acceptable. He further noted that these individuals had already completed a necessary ten-day training period.

Chief Justice said that if the state-proposed Group B officers joined the process immediately, they could provide their own expert opinions, which would ultimately improve the quality and accuracy of the decisions made by the EROs.

Justice Bagchi remarked, "You have issued notices to those who have 5-6 children. Yes, if 50, yes send them a notice...The tools that you have applied to the software are very restrictive tools. Kumar is a middle name in Bengali households...You have Tapan Kumar Roy there, and now you have sent notices when the name is Tapan Roy..."

Divan emphasized the extreme urgency of the situation, noting that the final SIR list was scheduled for publication on February 14. He said that once the list was finalized and election notifications were issued, the mass exclusion and "purging" of voters would become a 'fait accompli'.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan also pointed out the logistical absurdity, noting that West Bengal would practically need 8,000 districts to provide 8,000 SDM-rank officers.

Divan then presented evidence showing that the ECI's digital portal required micro-observers to "agree" or "disagree" with the decisions of EROs or AEROs. He argued that this effectively created an "extra-legal election authority."

Although Naidu alleged that this system had since been changed, Divan maintained that the general instructions were geared toward rejection.

He specifically flagged that voters were being excluded for lacking parent-linking documents or having minor name mismatches, even when they provided multiple forms of identification like Aadhaar or Admit cards. Divan said that these wholesale instructions appeared designed for the mass exclusion of legitimate citizens from the electoral rolls.

Divan said, "This entire PowerPoint presentation was given by ECI on WhatsApp to its officials on January 23...Now, see the extra legal role is given to these micro observers. Even though ERO and AERO finds its ok, it is the micro observer who is playing the key role. There needs to be a direction that ERO has to be the final authority who takes a decision."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan raised an alarm regarding the scale of the process, noting that 1.36 crore people had been excluded from the rolls. He urged the Court to stop the final list from being published on February 14, warning that once the deadline passed, the exclusion would become an irreversible fait accompli.

Cousnel for the TMC leader, Kalyan Banerjee, highlighted issues with the objection process, claiming that thousands of complaints were being filed by individuals who did not disclose their identities. He argued that these were essentially anonymous complaints and insisted that objectors must be physically present at hearings to verify who was actually challenging the voter entries.

Senior Advocate PC Sen pointed out that while the law allows for a Special Intensive Revision, there is no mandatory legal deadline for its completion. He suggested that the existing electoral roll should remain in effect until the SIR is properly concluded.

Conversely, Senior Advocate VV Giri reported that there had been wholesale burning of Form 7 objection forms, and requested an extension for submissions because so many records were destroyed.

In response to these claims of interference and destruction of forms, the Court said that it had already directed the State DGP to investigate these matters. It added that the Election Commission is not "helpless" in dealing with such administrative or criminal disruptions.

Background

Previously, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee appeared in person and submitted to the Court that the Election Commission is targeting the State on the eve of elections and that the SIR process is only for deletion and not for exclusion. She questioned the extreme urgency of the three-month timeline, noting that the pressure led to over 100 deaths, including those of Booth Level Officers, and accused the ECI of operating via informal instructions through WhatsApp.

It was also submitted that these actions lead to large-scale disenfranchisement and alleged serious irregularities in how the ECI classifies individuals under the ‘Logical Discrepancy’ category. She contended that the ECI fails to upload these lists online, which deprives citizens of transparency and the chance to respond.

The Court issued directions regarding the 1.25 crores voters in West Bengal falling in the category of 'Logistical Discrepancies'. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to hear the objections/discrepancies to these voters and to make smooth arrangements for such objections.

The Court noted that there were about 1.25 crores notices which have been issued for the purpose of the verification of documents, out of them, one category is described as 'logical discrepancy'. These notices were categorised into three headings, i.e. 1. Mapped, linked with the previous SIR of 2002; 2. Unmapped, voters who are not linked with the SIR of 2002; and 3. Logical Discrepancy, which comprises the maximum voters of 1.36 crores.

The Supreme Court had sought a response from the Election Commission on fresh interim pleas of Trinamool Congress MPs alleging arbitrariness and procedural irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

Previously, the Supreme Court had sought a response from the Election Commission on fresh interim pleas of Trinamool Congress MPs alleging arbitrariness and procedural irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

Derek O'Brien, in his plea, alleged arbitrariness and procedural irregularities in the SIR of electoral rolls in the state. The application said that since the inception of the SIR process in the state, the EC has issued instructions to officers at the ground level through "informal and extra-statutory channels", such as WhatsApp messages and oral directions conveyed during video conferences, instead of issuing formal written instructions. It said that on November 30 last year, the poll panel granted only a limited extension of time in relation to the revision schedule and fixed January 15, 2026, as the last date for submission of claims and objections. The application has sought a direction from the EC to extend the deadline for submitting claims and objections.

The Court had also sought separate responses of the Election Commission (EC) on pleas filed by DMK, CPI(M), West Bengal Congress and Trinamool Congress leaders challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, respectively.

Cause Title: Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India [W.P.(C) No. 129 of 2026], Mostari Banu v. The Election Commission of India [W.P. (C) No. 1089/ 2025] and Derek O' Brien v. The Election Commission of India [W.P. (C) No. 737/ 2025]