Supreme Court Modifies Its Order In West Bengal SIR Matter; Civil Judges With 3-Year Experience To Verify 80 Lakh Claims Of 'Logical Discrepancies'
The report from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court highlighted the "enormity of the exercise," noting that 250 judges currently assigned to verify 80 lakh logical discrepancies would take 80 days to finish at their current pace.
The Supreme Court, today, has modified its earlier order and asked the Calcutta High Court to draw officers in the rank of civil judges (civil and junior division having experience not less than 3 years) for the verification of approximately 80 lacs cases of 'logical discrepancies'.
Recently, on February 20, 2026, the Court had 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.
The report from the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court highlighted the "enormity of the exercise," noting that 250 judges currently assigned to verify 80 lakh logical discrepancies would take 80 days to finish at their current pace. To accelerate this, the bench authorized the Calcutta High Court to draft civil judges with at least three years of experience and, if necessary, requisition serving or retired officers from Odisha and Jharkhand, with the ECI bearing all travel and lodging costs.
Today, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered, "1. In addition to the judicial officers already assigned the task, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court would be entitled to draw officers from the rank of Civil Judges (Senior Division and Junior Division) having experience of not less than three years, to ensure that an adequate and reasonable pool is created to undertake the pending verification work on a war footing...2. If the Honourable Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court is of the opinion that further human resources would be required for completing the process, he is at liberty to approach the Honourable Chief Justices of neighbouring states—namely, the High Court of Jharkhand and the Odisha High Court—to provide serving or former judicial officers from those states of similar rank, who shall then also be associated to undertake verification work in the State of West Bengal. In that eventuality, the travel, boarding, honorarium, and other incidental expenses of such officers shall be borne by the Election Commission of India...The Honourable Chief Justices of the Jharkhand and Odisha High Courts are requested to sympathetically and urgently consider any request that may be made by the Honourable Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court in this regard."
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Shyam Diwan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy and Kalyan Banerjee appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the Election Commission of India.
The Court ordered, "Subsequent to our order dated 20th February 2026, we are in receipt of a self-speaking letter dated 22nd February 2026 from the Honourable Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, highlighting the enormity of the exercise to be undertaken in the verification of approximately 50 lakh cases emerging from 'logical discrepancies' to 'unmapped categories'. Consequently, in order to address the issues, the matter has been listed today. The parties have been heard and apprised."
It added, "For streamlining the nature of work, we clarify that the verification shall be with reference to the documents referred to in the notification dated 27th October 2025 issued by the Election Commission of India declaring the commencement of Special Intensive Revision in the State of West Bengal; notification dated 24th June 2025; and the order of this Court on 8th September 2025...whereby Aadhaar cards were allowed to be accepted as proof of identity. See also the order of this Court dated 19th January 2026 passed on the instant petition, whereby Madhyamik (Class 10) Admit Cards were also allowed to be submitted. Accordingly, we direct that all these documents, whether electronically updated or submitted physically on or before the cut-off date of 14th February 2026, may be considered."
"It shall be the entire responsibility of the ERO/AERO to satisfy the presiding judicial official of the validity of the documents referred to in paragraph 3 above. The last date of publication of the final electoral roll is 28th February 2026. However, that being said, if the verification exercise undertaken in respect of 'logical discrepancy/unmapped category' remains incomplete as on 28th February 2026, the ECI may publish the final list, followed by supplements to the final list. Such supplements shall be published regularly on a continuous basis as soon as the pending exercise is completed in part or in full...We deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and declare that the voters enlisted in such subsequent supplementary lists shall be deemed to have been part of the final list published on 28th February 2026 and shall be treated accordingly", the Court ordered.
The communication sent by the Chief Justice says that 250 judicial officers of the rank of [District Judge/Additional District Judge] have been assigned the task of verifying and ascertaining approximately 50 lakh claims and objections of persons included in the 'logical discrepancies'. It is estimated that even if each judicial officer disposes of around 250 cases per day, the entire exercise would stretch to 80 days. Taking note of this fact and the time constraints, we say that further clarification to increase the 'catchment area' of judicial officers undertaking the subject exercise, streamlining the nature of inquiry, and other ancillary matters are required.
Chief Justice Kant said, "The Chief Justice of the High Court has sent a report. The total human resource deployed is shown. He says there is not much resources.. around 226 retired officers, and after adding some more it's 294. Now, going by the calculation...if one officer decides 250 objections in a day...then it will take 80 days for the whole exercise to complete. All servicing civil judges will also be permitted now. That is the way out. Retired officers and serving ones from Odisha and Jharkhand will also be added now."
To expedite the process, the Court authorized the deployment of all serving civil judges in West Bengal. Furthermore, in an unprecedented move, the bench directed that retired and serving judicial officers from Odisha and Jharkhand be brought in to assist.
Addressing concerns over document validity, the Court directed that Aadhaar cards, Madhyamik admit cards, and passport certificates must be admitted as proof of identity, whether in physical or electronic form. The Court emphasized that historical ties between the neighboring states would likely bridge the linguistic gap, dismissing arguments that officers from Odisha or Jharkhand would struggle with the Bengali dialect during the verification process.
While the Election Commission is permitted to publish the final electoral roll on February 28, 2026, any voters added via subsequent supplementary lists will be legally "deemed" to have been part of the original February 28 list.
Background
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.
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]