West Bengal SIR| Supreme Court Mandates Transparent Verification For 1.36 Crore Voters Flagged For ‘Logical Discrepancies’

The Supreme Court, today, has 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.

The court was hearing the pleas challenging the procedural actions taken in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of the electoral rolls in West Bengal.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipanakr Datta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "In view to enable the persons who are, as if now, considered in the category of logistical discrepancies, we find it appropriate to issue the following directions: i. The names of the persons in logical discrepancies may be displayed in the public places and block offices of every taluka as well as in the ward office...ii. The persons likely to be affected are permitted to submit their documents through authorized representative, along with an authority letter of the representative, with a thumb mark...iii. The office for submitting the documents and objections shall be set up within Block Offices...".

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for TMC MP Derek O Brien, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for an Intervenor, and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for the Election Commission of India.

The Court further ordered, "The ECI shall issue instructions to provide additional documents/stock objections by all the affected persons, even though the date has expired. The State Government and Central Government are directed to ensure that law and order. The State Government shall provide additional manpower to the ECI. In this regard, we direct every Collector of the District to meticulously comply with the directions issued by ECI for smooth functioning; and v. The DG of Police of West Bengal is directed to ensure there is no law and order situation and the entire activities are completed smoothly".

The Court further added, "It goes without saying that wherever documents are not found satisfactory, he shall comply with the process mentioned in the SIR directions. Objections may also be heard at that very time, in person or through an authorized representative accompanying him."

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.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan raised serious concerns over the transparency and methodology employed by the Election Commission. Divan highlighted that critical instructions—such as barring Booth Level Agents (BLAs) from attending hearings on form objections—were being disseminated via WhatsApp messages from Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) to District Electoral Officers (DEOs). He argued that this informal mode of communication bypasses official scrutiny and lacks the transparency required for such a fundamental democratic process.

Divan questioned the legitimacy of profiling citizens based on data points like the age difference between parents or grandparents. He contended that such metrics have no statutory backing and are "irrelevant considerations" for determining the sanctity of an electoral roll. "Where are these criteria coming from? Who is deciding this?" Divan asked, emphasizing that such profiling is undesirable and legally fragile without a clear statute to support it.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out the immense logistical burden placed on ordinary citizens. With over 1.32 crore people reportedly profiled and only 500 hearing venues available, Sibal noted that many poor voters are forced to undertake arduous journeys, including crossing rivers, to defend their inclusion in the rolls. He argued that the lack of accessible venues effectively disenfranchises those who cannot afford the time or travel.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Dwivedi submitted the absurdity of some flagged data, noting instances where records erroneously showed individuals as having 100 children, suggesting the system itself is prone to significant error.

Justice Bagchi said, "See the strain and stress going on for the ordinary people, over 1 crore people are getting affected. Do not create a 3rd issue here, that's all we are requesting."

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 to 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.

Regarding the plea related to the violence against the BLOs in the State of West Bengal, the Court said that they are going to hear it on January 21, 2026.

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for a further date.

Cause Title: 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]