Supreme Court Appoints Judicial Officers For Bengal Voter Roll Revision Amid State–ECI Standoff

In an unusual intervention, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered the deployment of judicial officers to handle adjudication work in West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, citing a breakdown of trust between the State government and the Election Commission of India (ECI). The bench headed by CJI Surya Kant lamented over an “unfortunate blame game” and “allegations and counter-allegations,” which has led to a “trust deficit between two Constitutional bodies, namely the democratically elected State Government and the Election Commission of India.”

The Court directed that serving and retired judicial officers of district-judge rank be assigned to perform the functions of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) for pending claims and objections, particularly those classified under “logical discrepancy.” But the bench has left it to the jurisprudence of the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court. Essentially the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice will now decide the formation of these Judicial officials and the modalities there after.
Explaining its decision, the bench said: “In order to ensure fairness in the adjudication of the genuineness of the documents… we are left with hardly any other option but to request the hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Calcutta to spare serving judicial officers…” The CJI made it clear that state government authorities including the district police and collectors will be obligated to provide all logistical support to the judicial officials in the adjudication of cases. The matter in their domain will be those, particularly which are now caught in quagmire, after individuals had been served with notices under “logical discrepancy”. These officers will be assisted by ECI micro-observers and state officials already assigned to SIR duties, ordered Supreme Court.

The judges acknowledged that reallocating judicial personnel could affect court functioning but stated that “the circumstances being extraordinary, the entrustment… is also extraordinary” and thereby urged the Chief Justice of Calcutta high court through a committee to decide if pending matters before particular benches needed to be transferred to another bench so that subjudice matters do not suffer delay due to this SIR exercise.

The Court allowed publication of the final electoral roll for completed portions on February 28 and permitted the ECI to release supplementary lists later for unresolved cases. Responding to allegations of inflammatory speeches made by politicians against the SIR exercise in West Bengal and also pertaining to pending matters concerning law and order violations, the bench directed the the State Director General of Police to submit a supplementary affidavit detailing action taken on complaints of threats against SIR officials. The bench also reminded the DGP of serious consequences if there were violations of court order.

The hearing saw sharp disagreements over whether West Bengal had complied with earlier court directions to provide adequate officers for SIR duties.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State, argued that Group-B officers had been supplied. Counsel for the ECI countered that officers of Sub-Divisional Magistrate rank, capable of passing quasi-judicial orders - had not been provided. The bench expressed displeasure at the State’s position, with the Chief Justice remarking, “We are disappointed to see. We were expecting cooperation by state.”

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, alleged that the ECI had introduced a new “species of officers” called Special Roll Observers who were scrutinising files already cleared by EROs, arguing that such officials “cannot trump ERO.” The ECI denied the allegation and maintained that such observers existed from the beginning of the process. Senior Advocate Divan alleged that files which have already been mapped and cleared are revised by the SRO, superseding the decisions of ERO. Frustrated by the stalemate, the bench indicated it would bring in neutral personnel if cooperation did not improve, warning that if the SIR exercise remained incomplete, consequences would follow. Ultimately, both sides accepted the Court’s proposal to appoint judicial officers to replace micro-observers and special roll observers in the adjudication process. CJI Kant made it abundantly clear that if the SIR issue isn’t resolved within the timeframe then that may lead to constitutional crisis, reminding that delay in SIR execution may invariably lead to delay in publication of voter list and eventually may impact as when the election finally happens.​