The Supreme Court firmly said ECI instructions cannot override its orders during the West Bengal SIR hearing. CJI assured that judicial officers will decide the modalities independently and “uninfluenced.”
In a significant hearing in the Supreme Court concerning the West Bengal SIR (Special Intensive Revision) row, sharp exchanges took place between Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and the Bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), highlighting concerns over alleged instructions issued to judicial officers and the role of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Appearing in the matter, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal raised objections regarding what he described as actions taken without proper transparency.
He submitted that
“Modalitys will be settled by the Chief Justice and the committee. What they have done is behind the back, what they have issued directions to the judicial officers and issued a training module.”
He expressed concern that directions had allegedly been circulated to judicial officers along with a training module without clarity on how these steps aligned with the Court’s previous orders.
The Chief Justice, however, firmly responded to the suggestion that judicial officers could be influenced. The CJI stated,
“No, no, please, now don’t doubt the judicial officers.”
The Bench made it clear that the integrity and independence of judicial officers should not be questioned during the proceedings.
Senior Advocate Sibal continued his submissions, reiterating that the issue involved a structured training process. He said,
“It’s a training module. It’s a training module for judicial officers. We should by EC again. But once they issue a saying, don’t accept the domicile certificate for which students get admission to university. The Chief Justice will decide. That’s what your Lordship said.”
He argued that if any instructions were issued that could affect acceptance of domicile certificates—documents often crucial for university admissions—the modalities must be determined strictly in accordance with the Court’s directions.
Clarifying the Court’s position, the Chief Justice responded,
“It is not decide. Judicial officers will decide.”
The CJI further explained,
“They will decide the modalities. Modality means the arrangements of this entire process that is to be undertaken.”
The Bench emphasised that judicial officers themselves would determine the arrangements and procedure to be followed in implementing the Court’s directions, without external interference.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also intervened during the hearing and raised a pointed question regarding the training aspect. He asked,
“Who will train them? To understand the process. Our order is clear as daylight and ECI instruction cannot override our orders.”
The observation made it clear that any instructions issued by the Election Commission cannot supersede or dilute the Supreme Court’s binding directions.
Senior Advocate Sibal maintained that the decision-making process should remain free from any external influence and submitted,
“they should decided uninfluenced.”
The Chief Justice agreed with this concern and assured the Court that judicial officers would function independently, stating,
“yes they will.”
The hearing reflects the Supreme Court’s firm stand on preserving judicial independence and ensuring that its orders are implemented in letter and spirit. The Bench underscored that while modalities and arrangements may need to be worked out for practical implementation, such processes must remain strictly within the framework of judicial authority and cannot be overridden by administrative instructions from any authority, including the Election Commission.
The matter continues to draw attention due to its implications for electoral processes, administrative instructions, and the autonomy of judicial officers in carrying out court-mandated procedures.
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on West Bengal SIR
