Today, On 24th February, In the West Bengal SIR case, the Supreme Court of India permitted deploying civil judges and seeking officers from nearby states From Odisha & Jharkhand. It said even if each judge handles 250 cases daily, the verification would still need eighty days.
The Supreme Court continued the hearing in the petition filed by Mamata Banerjee against the SIR process started by the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act.
The Top Court ruled that the Calcutta High Court may also deploy civil judges with at least three years’ experience to expedite the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipin Pancholi today permitted the use of civil judges so the exercise could be carried out on a war footing.
Earlier, Noting a trust deficit between the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the West Bengal government, the Court had on February 20 ordered the deployment of district judges and additional district judges, including retired judges, to ensure the SIR proceeded smoothly.
In a subsequent note, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court highlighted the scale of the task: 250 judicial officers have been assigned to decide roughly 8 million cases involving voters categorized under logical discrepancy and unmapped entries.
ALSO READ: BREAKING: CM Mamata Banerjee Arrives At Supreme Court for West Bengal SIR Case Hearing
Even if each judge were to decide 250 cases per day, the court observed, the work would still require about 80 days to complete.
The Supreme Court then passed an order noting that,
“Even if each officer disposes of 250 cases daily, the entire verification exercise would still take around 80 days; therefore, further clarity is required to expand the pool of judicial officers.”
The Bench said,
“Taking note of this fact and the time constraints, we are of the view that further clarifications are needed to increase the catchment area of judicial officers,”
The Court also stated that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court may seek assistance from the Chief Justices of the Orissa and Jharkhand High Courts to obtain serving and retired judicial officers of comparable rank from those neighbouring states.
The Court ordered,
“If the High Court Chief Justice feels that further human resource is needed he may approach chief Justices of neighboring states – Orissa and Jharkhand High Court to draw serving and retired judicial officers of those states in similar rank who shall be entrusted to complete the verification work in west bengal. Travel, boarding, lodging of such officers shall be borne by the election commission of India,”
Additionally, the Bench clarified which documents may be accepted during claim processing.
The Court ordered,
“The order of this Court on Sept 2025 where aadhaar was allowed as proof of identity and order of this court passed on the writ petition relating to Madhyamik admit card and password certificate shall be admitted. We state that all such documents whether electronically updated or physically handed over before Feb 14,2026 shall be considered,”
The Court further said the ECI may publish the final voter list on February 28, with supplementary lists to follow on a rolling basis.
The Bench said,
“We deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 and declare that voters enlisted in such supplementary lists shall be deemed to be part of final list published on February 28, 2026,”
The Supreme Court also reaffirmed its September 2025 ruling that Aadhaar is a valid identity proof and that admit cards and pass certificates may also be relied upon.
It clarified that all such documents whether electronically updated or physically submitted on or before February 14, 2026 must be taken into consideration.
According to the EC’s schedule, the final electoral roll will be published on February 28, 2026.
The Court added that if verification of the logical discrepancy/unmapped category remains incomplete by then, the Election Commission may publish the final roll first and then issue continuous supplementary lists as the remaining cases get verified.
ALSO READ: West Bengal Is Targeted: TMC’s Mamata Banerjee Tells Supreme Court Over SIR Controversy
Additionally, On February 9, the Court had directed the State of West Bengal to ensure that officers it provided to the ECI actually report for duty. The ECI later complained that the officers supplied were not adequately qualified, prompting the Court’s directive to deploy judicial officers.
The Court also emphasized that any orders or directions issued by serving or former judicial officers in this exercise “shall be deemed to be a direction issued by the Court,” and that state authorities must comply immediately to ensure timely completion of the SIR.
Last year, the ECI carried out an SIR in Bihar ahead of assembly elections. Several petitions, including those from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the National Federation for Indian Women (NFIW), contested the procedure, but the ECI continued as the Supreme Court did not stay the process.
The ECI then extended the SIR to other states and union territories, including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, prompting further legal challenges. The Court reserved orders on those petitions on January 29.
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee challenged the ECI’s decision to conduct an SIR in the state, asking the Court to direct that elections proceed using the existing rolls compiled last year and to halt deletion particularly of voters listed under “Logical Discrepancy.”
Earlier, On February 4, Banerjee appeared in person before the Court, raising several concerns about the SIR and accusing the ECI of singling out West Bengal ahead of the assembly elections.
Banerjee said,
“They only targeted Bengal on the eve of elections. What was the hurry? What takes two years is being done in three months even when festival, harvesting season is there,”
The Court instructed the ECI to exercise caution when sending notices based on name mismatches, but it also made clear that it would not permit obstacles that hinder the completion of the SIR.
Case Title: MAMATA BANERJEE vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR., W.P.(C) No. 129/2026 (PIL-W) and Connected Matters
Read Live Coverage