Supreme Court Flags Bengal as Outlier in SIR; Says Exercise Smooth Elsewhere

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has progressed largely without disruption across the country, with West Bengal standing out as the only state facing sustained legal and administrative hurdles. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a batch of petitions related to the revision exercise in West Bengal, including a challenge by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over aspects of the process - particularly the identification of voters under a “logical discrepancy” category.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice referred to recent reports on the nationwide progress of the revision exercise and remarked that, barring West Bengal, the process had unfolded smoothly in other states. He noted that litigation from the rest of the country had been minimal and, in some instances, electoral rolls had even expanded following the revision. This hearing followed the midnight publication of first supplementary list on Tuesday pertaining to approximately 29 lakh people who were under adjudications before judicial officers. Total 60 lakh people were put under adjudication owing to “logical discrepancies”. Even though these 29 lakh cases have been reportedly disposed off, but no one has been able to access the data due to technical glitches in election commission website. While the issue was highlighted, Justice Bagchi expressed confidence that upon receiving the communication from the ECI, they were confident that the list will be available by Wednesday.

Responding to the Court’s observations, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the West Bengal government, argued that the situation in the state was materially different. He pointed to developments such as the publication of a “logical discrepancy list” and administrative decisions like late-night notifications and the reported midnight transfer of the Chief Secretary - that, according to him, had no parallel elsewhere. He also attributed increases in voter numbers in other states to population growth since earlier roll revisions, suggesting that such changes were not unusual.

Justice Bagchi drew attention to the scale and urgency of the exercise in Bengal, noting the pressure on judicial officers tasked with adjudicating a massive volume of claims and objections within a tight timeframe. He underlined that while the process posed “unique challenges,” the Court’s priority remained the protection of the fundamental democratic right to vote. The judge urged all stakeholders to move beyond assigning blame and instead work cooperatively to resolve outstanding issues.

The bench made it clear that most of the operational and logistical concerns raised fall within the administrative domain of the Calcutta High Court and designated authorities. The Chief Justice indicated that the Supreme Court would step in only where necessary, advising parties to approach the High Court or adjudicating officers for routine difficulties. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing Mamata Banerjee, informed the Court that judicial officers had already disposed of a substantial number of cases arising from earlier supplementary lists. However, he flagged concerns about pending claims, including those affecting prospective candidates ahead of nomination deadlines. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy also urged the Court to consider extending the deadline for freezing electoral rolls to ensure that no genuine voter is excluded.

Counsel for the Election Commission acknowledged the scale of the exercise, describing it as “humongous,” and indicated readiness to publish supplementary lists on a daily basis. A proposal to that effect, the Court was told, has already been submitted to the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.
The bench also took note of the heavy workload borne by judicial officers, with over two lakh objections currently under adjudication. Many of these officers, the Court observed, have been working without leave, following earlier directions to deploy additional personnel including officers from neighbouring states such as Odisha and Jharkhand - to expedite the process.

Justice Bagchi suggested that constituencies scheduled for early phases of polling be prioritised to ensure adherence to the election timeline. The Court indicated it would consider requests regarding the extension of deadlines and is likely to take up the matter again around April 1.
The ongoing proceedings form part of the Supreme Court’s continued oversight of the electoral roll revision process in West Bengal. While refraining from issuing fresh directions on Tuesday, the Court reiterated the need for transparency, administrative efficiency and institutional coordination between the Election Commission, the state administration and the judiciary. The Court signalled that while it remains available to address critical concerns, much of the resolution must come through effective handling at the High Court level and through administrative mechanisms already put in place.​