The Supreme Court, heard Mamata Banerjee’s plea against the Election Commission’s SIR exercise, expressed concern over a “blame game” and lack of cooperation between the State and ECI. The Bench hinted at appointing judicial officers to resolve the impasse in the sensitive voter revision process.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday resumed Day 3 hearing in the petition filed by Mamata Banerjee challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard extensive arguments from both sides, as senior counsel debated compliance with earlier directions and raised serious concerns about the ongoing revision process.
At the beginning of the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, reminded the Court of its earlier order. He submitted,
“Remember that on the 9th of February, your Lordships passed an order that scrutinizing of documents, well, it is going to take some time, so therefore time is extended till the 21st from the 14th. -Well, while this order was passed, on the 15th itself, they stopped the uploading of the documents. I assure you, Your Lordship.”
The Chief Justice then asked for clarity and stated,
“specify which portion of the order was being relied upon.”
In response, Sibal referred to page 14 of the IEA and pointed out paragraph 19 and paragraph 6 of the order dated 9 February.
The Bench then turned its attention to compliance with directions relating to appointment of officers. The Chief Justice directed,
“Please place the compliance on record step by step. With respect to Group-B officers, has the ECI identified eligible personnel?”
Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the Commission, replied that the required profile of officers had already been communicated and that the State had responded asking for time. He pointed out that the State had informed that the proposal from the CEO’s office was under examination and would be taken up shortly, and that a notification dated 18 February had been issued after the said communication.
However, the Chief Justice expressed concern over the State’s response, noting that for the 9 February order, the reply came only on 17 February.
The Court questioned the vague statement that the State was merely “examining” officers and observed that concrete compliance — such as deputing the required 8,500 officers — should have been reported. The Bench conveyed disappointment at the lack of effective cooperation and clarified that it did not require private explanations.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted that only 69 Sub-Divisional Officers (SDOs) were available and that the post required nine years’ experience.
Addressing the nature of the work involved in the SIR process, the Chief Justice said that officers concerned perform quasi-judicial functions and therefore require a judicially trained mind; clerical staff cannot be tasked with passing speaking orders on acceptance or rejection of documents.
He further observed that West Bengal need not follow the Rajasthan model, but if sufficient Group-A officers were unavailable, the ECI could be asked to deploy its own officers.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that ECI officers may face difficulty due to limited knowledge of Bengali.
The Chief Justice noted that the SIR process had already commenced and emphasized that both sides must remain mindful of its sensitivity.
Senior Advocate Divan then raised a fresh issue regarding the role of Special Roll Observers. He argued that a new category called Special Roll Observers had been introduced and stated that even after the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) cleared the files of mapped voters, these observers were reviewing and returning them in large numbers.
He submitted that these Special Roll Observers had been given separate login credentials and were effectively overriding the decisions taken by the EROs. He contended that a Special Roll Observer was not legally empowered to supersede the ERO and questioned the authority under which they were rejecting, on a wholesale basis, the work already completed by the EROs.
Observing the growing friction between the authorities, the Chief Justice remarked that a situation was being created where judicial officers might have to intervene. He noted that there were two constitutional functionaries involved — the State and the Election Commission of India — and suggested that one possible course could be to involve the State judiciary.
Under this option, serving or retired judicial officers could be assigned the task and would be assisted by personnel from the ECI and the State government. Alternatively, officers from the IAS cadre belonging to other States could be deputed to undertake the work.
Justice Bagchi also remarked that there appeared to be hesitation from both sides and suggested that judicial officers may assist in the process and help bring it to its logical conclusion.
In its order, the Court recorded that there had been a shifting trajectory in the directions issued from time to time, including those recorded in its last order dated 9 February 2020.
It further observed that what had unfolded was a blame game marked by allegations and counter-allegations, revealing a clear trust deficit between two constitutional authorities — the democratically elected State Government on one hand and the Chief Election Commissioner along with the Election Commission of India on the other.
The Bench noted that at present, the process appeared to have reached an impasse at the stage concerning the identification and consideration of claims and objections of persons included in the category described as “logical discrimination.”
The Court recorded:
“Most of the persons against whom requisitions were issued under this category have approached this Court. These objections and claims necessarily require adjudication.Such determination falls within the quasi-judicial domain of the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). Under the applicable rules, practice, and convention, the duties of EROs are to be entrusted to Group A officers holding the substantive rank of Sub-Divisional Officers/Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDOs/SDMs). However, a dispute has arisen between the parties regarding the substantive scope, actual rank, and status of the officers deputed by the State Government to discharge.”
The Bench then proposed an interim solution to break the deadlock and observed:
“The pending claims could be examined with the assistance of officers of unimpeachable integrity, including former judicial officers, strictly in an auxiliary capacity.”
Further clarifying the structure of this mechanism, the Court directed:
“Each such officer shall be supported by micro-observers and by State Government officials already deputed for these duties.
•Given the extraordinary circumstances, the arrangement is being contemplated as an exceptional measure.
•The Court remains conscious that this exercise may incidentally affect certain pending matters.
•Accordingly, the Chief Justice, in consultation with an appropriate committee of Judges, may consider evolving an interim mechanism to route urgent cases to alternative courts.”
ALSO READ: ED vs Mamata Banerjee| I-PAC Raids Row: Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing to Mar 18
To ensure strict implementation, the Court passed the following directions:
“The DGP and Collector shall be on deemed deputation to ensure compliance with all directions.
•Orders of the designated judicial officer shall be treated as orders of this Court and implemented immediately by the State.
•The State Election Commissioner, ECI officer, Chief Secretary and DGP, in the presence of the ASG and AAG, shall meet the Chief Justice to submit proposals to resolve the stalemate.
•The final mechanism will be settled by the Chief Justice, with the objective that the process begins promptly and concludes smoothly.”
During submissions, Senior Advocate Naidu stated that the final electoral list could be published after February 28, followed by a supplementary list. Senior Advocate Sibal immediately objected (“No no…”).
The Court then clarified in its order:
“if the process is completed, the list can be published after Feb 28, but it won’t be treated as final and a supplementary list will follow.”
Senior Advocate Sibal warned that there would be law-and-order issues if such publication takes place.
The Chief Justice thereafter requested the High Court to cooperate and create an environment where judicial officers can function independently and effectively, while also raising a serious question about the consequences if the Special Investigating Report (SIR) process is not completed.
Case Title:
Mamata Banerjee versus Election Commission of India and Anr.
(W.P.(C) No.129/2026 PIL-W)
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Mamata Banerjee
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
