The Supreme Court expressed concern over the stress faced by voters during West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision and directed the Election Commission of India to publish the names of over 1.25 crore electors flagged with discrepancies, ensuring transparency, fairness, and opportunity to be heard.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a comprehensive set of directions aimed at ensuring transparency, fairness, and voter convenience in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, following allegations of arbitrariness and large-scale inconvenience faced by voters.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, heard a batch of petitions challenging the manner in which the Election Commission of India (ECI) was conducting the verification exercise.
ALSO READ: West Bengal SIR Row: Supreme Court Lists All Connected Cases for January 19
Background
The petitions raised serious concerns regarding the categorisation of voters under the SIR, particularly the category termed “logical discrepancy”, which reportedly covered the largest number of voters flagged for verification.
According to the ECI, nearly 1.25 crore notices had been issued under the SIR, dividing voters into three categories:
- Mapped voters linked to the 2002 electoral revision
- Unmapped voters not linked to earlier revisions
- Logical discrepancy voters, numbering approximately 1.36 crore
The court noted that logical discrepancies included issues such as mismatches in parental names, spelling variations, and age gaps between parents, grandparents, and electors, which triggered verification notices.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the criteria adopted by the ECI were arbitrary, vague, and disproportionate, disproportionately impacting ordinary citizens.
He highlighted how minor spelling variations in Bengali surnames, such as “Datta”, were being treated as discrepancies, leading to unnecessary notices. Sibal urged the court to direct authorities to:
- Publish a complete list of voters flagged under logical discrepancies
- Ensure active assistance by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) during the correction process
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for an intervenor, flagged a lack of transparency, referring to an alleged WhatsApp message circulated to district election officers stating that Booth Level Agents (BLAs) would not be allowed to attend hearings. Divan questioned the statutory basis of the logical discrepancy criteria, arguing that parental or grandparental age gaps have no legal foundation under election law.
Representing the ECI, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi countered the allegations, stating that:
- Notices were not issued merely for spelling errors
- The issuance of a notice did not automatically lead to the deletion of names
- The purpose of the exercise was to enable the correction of errors
Dwivedi also submitted that while BLAs were appointed from all political parties, they did not have a legal right to be present in every individual hearing.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned why political party agents could not assist voters, especially when such a large population was affected. The CJI emphasised that the exercise must be timely, transparent, non-arbitrary and sensitive to the needs of poor and remote-area voters
The Bench expressed concern that the process should not impose undue hardship on over a crore electors.
Supreme Court Directions on Electoral Roll Revision
After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court issued detailed directions, including:
- Public display of names of voters flagged under the “logical discrepancy” category at Gram panchayat bhavans, Block, taluka, and subdivision offices and Ward offices in urban areas
- Permission for voters to submit documents and objections through authorised representatives, including BLAs, supported by an authority letter
- Directions to set up document submission facilities at the panchayat and block offices
- Directions to the West Bengal government to provide adequate manpower to assist the ECI
- Directions to the Director General of Police to ensure no law and order issues during the exercise
- Extension of time for voters who had not yet submitted documents or objections
- Clarification that all affected persons must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing
- Mandatory certification of receipt by officials accepting documents or conducting hearings
The Bench also briefly heard a related plea alleging violence against Booth Level Officers (BLOs) during the SIR process and indicated that the matter would be listed again for further consideration.
Concluding the hearing, the CJI observed that while correction of electoral rolls is necessary, it must be conducted in a manner that is fair, transparent, and humane, ensuring that the process does not cause unnecessary stress or disenfranchisement of voters.
Case Title:
Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India & connected matters
W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025
Click Here to Read More Reports on West Bengal’s SIR
