The Supreme Court on Monday extended the deadline for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, while firmly clarifying that micro-observers have no authority to take decisions on voter claims or objections. A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India made it clear that the revision exercise must proceed without disruption, observing that the Court would “not allow any impediment” to a constitutionally mandated electoral process.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) had approached the Court seeking additional time to complete the SIR exercise, citing operational difficulties on the ground. Accepting the request, the Court granted a one-week extension beyond the earlier February 14 deadline, stressing that the extension should be used strictly for completing the revision in accordance with law. At the same time, the Bench underlined that voters’ rights cannot be compromised in the name of administrative urgency, and that due procedure must be followed at every stage.
“Since process of scrutinizing documents submitted by effected persons in response to notices is likely to take more time, and as suggested on behalf of some of petitioners, we direct that at least 1 week more time beyond 14 February will be granted to EROs for completing scrutiny of documents and taking apt. decision,” noted the apex court in its order.
One of the most significant clarifications made by the Court relates to the role of micro-observers, whose deployment had become a flashpoint between the West Bengal government and the Election Commission.
Representing the Bengal government, senior Advocate Shyam Diwan noted, “We are only concerned with micro-observers.” “Micro observers is basically a team created by you for assisting ERO and AERO...what's the nature of that assistance?” asked CJI Surya Kant. Responding to this observation, senior Advocate BS Naidu, representing ECI stated, “They sit during process of hearing and notice objections, documents...they scrutinize and say on website they are perfect, if not, please consider.”
The apex court categorically held that micro-observers “cannot pass orders” on inclusion or deletion of names from the electoral rolls. It reiterated that only Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are empowered under election law to decide claims and objections. Micro-observers, the Court said, can at best assist the process or flag irregularities, but final authority must rest with statutory officers.
In an attempt to address concerns raised by the State government over the deployment of central personnel, the Supreme Court directed West Bengal to submit a list of Group-B officers who could be utilised for the revision exercise. Mamata Banerjee government has proposed 8505 Group B officers who could replace the existing micro-observers. The bench didn’t replace the existing micro-observers but allowed the state officials to also attach themselves to the service of giving assistance in scrutiny and verification work, help the ERO to take the final decision.
“Officers from list of 8505, ECI after briefly scrutinizing their work experience, may shortlist these officers equivalent to strength of micro-observers already engaged. these state govt officers maybe imparted brief training of a day or so for providing assistance to EROs/AEROs along with micro-observers who have already been engaged. Responsibility assigned/to be assigned to micro-observers or state govt officials shall be only to assist EROs/AEROs. Final decision will be taken by EROs only,” said the Supreme Court in its order.
The Bench also took note of allegations placed before it regarding intimidation and obstruction faced by SIR officials in certain areas of the State. Taking these submissions seriously, the Court issued a show-cause notice to the West Bengal Director General of Police, seeking an explanation on complaints that adequate police protection was not provided and that FIRs were allegedly not registered despite requests from election authorities. The Court reminded the State that maintaining law and order during electoral exercises is a constitutional obligation, and any failure in this regard would be viewed seriously.
The SIR exercise has been politically contentious, with the State government expressing apprehension over potential voter exclusion, while the Election Commission has maintained that the revision is necessary to ensure accurate and updated rolls. The matter is expected to be taken up again after compliance reports are filed by both the State government and the Election Commission.
