Breaking: Supreme Court Orders Judicial Oversight In West Bengal SIR Row; Asks High Court To Appoint Judicial Officers To Adjudicate Claims And Objections In Process

The Supreme Court has asked the Calcutta High Court to appoint judicial officers to oversee the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The Bench directed that District and Additional District Judges be deputed to adjudicate the claims and objections, effectively shifting the verification process into a quasi-judicial framework.

To ensure absolute compliance, the Court said the State DGP and District Collectors under "deemed deputation" to the judicial officers and mandated a high-level meeting between the Chief Justice of the High Court and top state and ECI officials to finalize a mechanism for completing the voter list revision smoothly.

Previously, the Court 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 Vipul M Pancholi ordered, "The foremost issue that has our consideration is around the completion of the ongoing completion of SIR in the State of West Bengal...There is an unfortunate blame game, allegations and counter-allegations, which clearly reflects a trust deficit between two constitutional functionalities, namely the democratic elected state of West Bengal and the Election Commission of India. Now, the process is stuck at the stage of claims and objections of the persons who have been included in the logical discrepancy list. Most of the persons to whom notices were issued have submitted their documents in support of their claim for inclusion in the voter list. These claims are required to be adjudicated in a quasi-judicial process by the EROs...In order to ensure fairness in the adjudication of documents relied upon, and on consequence...we are left with hardly any other option but to request the Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta to...some judicial officers in the rank of District Judges/Additional District Judges who can then in each district aid in dispose or revisit the claims under the logical discrepancy list. Each officer shall be assisted by the ECI and officials of the State Government deputed to assist in the duty."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan appeared for the Petitioners, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India, Senior Advocate DS Naidu appeared for the Election Commission of India, Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy appeared for the State of Kerala, and Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manusinghvi appeared for the DGP of the State.

The Court ordered, "Due to extraordinary circumstance the request of these officers serving is also extraordinary. This will also impact pending court cases. Chief Justice along with the committee of judges, registrar general, and principal district judges, shall take a call to shift interim relief cases to an alternate court for as week-10 days...The DGP and the Collector shall be under deemed deputation to ensure compliance with the directions which shall be issued from time to time. Direction issued by the judicial officer shall be the direction of this court and the state govt shall follow it forthwith to ensure compliance with the process. Since the modality will have to be tuned at the High Court end, we direct the State Election Commissioner, ECI officer, Chief secretary, DGP, and in the presence of ASG, AAG shall hold a meeting with the Chief Justice tomorrow. They shall put up respective proposal as to how to remove the stalemate and complete the process. The mechanism to be followed will be as per the CJ and our anxiety is work commences and it wraps up smoothly."

Sibal submitted, "On 9th February...passed an order that scrutinising of documents is going to take some time, so therefore, the time is extended till 21st February from the 14th...while these orders were passed on the 15th itself, they stopped the uploading of the documents."

Chief Justice asked the ECI, "Did you find any eligible officers?"

The Court expressed profound disappointment over the West Bengal government's delayed response to the court’s February 9 mandate, noting that the state took eight days just to inform the ECI that it was "examining" the availability of officers.

The Court criticized this lack of cooperation, emphasizing that the state should have immediately deployed the requested 8,500 officials rather than providing bureaucratic excuses.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that the state had a limited number of qualified SDOs with the required nine years of experience. The Bench remarked that these roles require a "partially judicially trained mind" capable of passing formal orders that decide the fate of citizens, rather than clerical staff.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that many ECI-appointed officers had little knowledge of the Bengali language, creating a practical barrier to accurate verification.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan then raised an alarm over a "new species" of special roll observers who he claimed were overriding the decisions of statutory Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).

Divan argued that nearly 7 lakh people had their voting status "parked" or stalled because these observers were given digital login credentials to intervene after an ERO had already cleared a file. While the CJI questioned whether there was any harm in an observer flagging a doubtful document, Divan maintained that an extra-legal authority was being created to trump legally empowered officers.

Senior Advocate Naidu denied these allegations, insisting that these observers had been part of the process from the start and were never intended to override the EROs' final authority.

Chief Justice Kant, "A situation is being created where judicial officers have to intervene."

The Court said, "There are two constitutional functionaries...the State and the ECI. We are left with either involve state judiciary and asking state judicial officers or retired judicial officers to be assisted by ECI and State Government workers..or have IAS officers from other states come and work on this."

Justice Bagchi said, "There is a sense of hesitancy on both ends. We propose that judicial officers can aid and assist the entire process and take this into logical agreement."

Naidu submitted on behalf of ECI, "Please see the provocative, threatening speeches made across the state and no action taken."

Chief Justice remarked, "Unfortunately, in this country, all these statements are made during elections. Is the DGP taking care of this, or else there will be stern action?"

The CJI warned that the failure to complete the SIR would lead to far more dire consequences for the state’s democratic process than the current administrative challenges.

"We direct DGP to file supplementary affidavit detailing complaint recieved so far and the steps which has been taken. the affidavit will also refer to complaints which may have been recieved meanwhile...This is an extraordinary step in extraordinary circumstances”, the Court concluded.

Background

On February 9, 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.

On January 19, the Court issued directions regarding the 1.25 crores voters in West Bengal falling in the category of 'Logistical Discrepancies'. The Court has directed the Election Commission of India to hear the objections/discrepancies to these voters and to make smooth arrangements for such objections.

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]