West Bengal SIR| Judicial Officers Will Not Be Influenced: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Challenge To ECI Training Module For Judges For Voter List Revision

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain the Trinamool Congress's objections against the Election Commission of India (ECI) related to the training of judicial officers assigned to verify voter claims in West Bengal.

The party objected to the ECI’s involvement in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and providing specific material the Judicial Officers regarding the acceptance of the documents. Previously, on February 24, 2026, 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'.

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, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, dismissed these concerns, affirming that the judicial officers would remain independent and follow the court's established guidelines regardless of the training modules.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, mentioned before the Court, alleging that the Election Commission of India (ECI) was overstepping its bounds. Sibal argued that the ECI issued a "clandestine" training module to judicial officers, instructing them on which documents to accept and which to reject, specifically citing domicile certificates. He contended this violated the SC’s previous order, which mandated that all modalities be settled by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and a specialized committee.

The Bench emphasized that the legal framework for the SIR is already set in stone by the Court's own directives.

"We know our judicial officers, and they are not to be influenced by anything... There has to be an end to it", CJI Surya Kant said.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi added that the Court's orders regarding admissible documents are "as clear as daylight" and that neither the ECI nor the State government has the authority to deviate from them.

The Bench had previously 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.

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]