The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a writ petition filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, challenging the legality, timing, and manner of implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi directed the ECI to file its response by February 9. It observed that micro-observers could be withdrawn if the state furnished a list of officers capable of being assigned SIR duties.
The Apex Court further cautioned against the issuance of hearing notices for trivial spelling discrepancies, underscoring the need for administrative sensitivity.
The petition questioned the constitutional validity of the SIR notifications dated June 24, 2025 and October 27, 2025, contending that the revision exercise has resulted in large-scale exclusion of eligible voters in violation of Article 324 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
While the Chief Minister was represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, she also made brief oral submissions during the hearing.
As per the petitioner, the SIR primarily functioned as a deletion-driven exercise rather than a corrective or inclusive revision, disproportionately affecting marginalised sections of voters.
Particular emphasis was placed on women electors who, following marriage, change surnames and residences, leading to their names being categorised under the ‘Logical Discrepancy’ list for minor spelling variations or clerical inconsistencies arising from transliteration of Bengali names into English.
It was argued that such discrepancies have triggered hearing notices and deletion proceedings without adherence to due process or the principles of natural justice.
The plea further alleged sustained administrative inaction by the ECI despite multiple representations raising these concerns. It contended that the cumulative effect of the SIR has been systematic disenfranchisement, striking at the heart of free and fair elections, a principle recognised as part of the basic structure of the Constitution in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and reaffirmed in subsequent electoral jurisprudence.
During the hearing, the Bench noted that several petitions concerning the West Bengal SIR were already pending before the Court and recalled that detailed directions had been issued on January 19, including directions requiring transparency in the verification of names included in the Logical Discrepancy list. The petitioner, however, maintained that these directions were not being uniformly implemented on the ground.
The petitioner alleged that the SIR exercise had been selectively enforced in West Bengal on the eve of the 2026 Assembly elections, while comparable exercises were not undertaken with similar intensity in other states. Allegations were raised regarding differential treatment in the acceptance of Aadhaar as proof of identity, despite its permissibility under existing ECI guidelines and judicial precedents recognising Aadhaar as a valid supporting document, subject to statutory limitations.
The petition highlighted the compressed timeline of the revision exercise, carried out during agricultural and festive seasons, which was said to have imposed undue hardship on voters and election staff alike. The ple mentioned reports of fatalities, hospitalisations and extreme workload pressures faced by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), raising questions of administrative proportionality and procedural fairness.
It further raised objection to the appointment of nearly 8,000 micro-observers, who were allegedly exercising supervisory functions beyond their statutory remit, thereby undermining the authority of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), Assistant EROs and BLOs. It was claimed that over 58 lakh electors had been affected during the process, including instances where living voters were erroneously marked as deceased.
The top court of the country observed that all statutory instructions must emanate from authorised officers and indicated that appropriate directions would be issued to ensure that BLOs remain the primary executing authority in the field.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, defended the appointment of micro-observers, submitting that they were validly appointed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 due to the state government’s failure to spare adequate Group B officers for SIR duties despite repeated requisitions.
Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu supported this submission, attributing the deployment to administrative necessity rather than any extraneous consideration.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta apprised the Court that ECI officials were facing an atmosphere of hostility in the state and requested that a pending public interest litigation seeking protection for election personnel be listed along with the present matter. The Bench agreed to hear both matters together on the next date.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan pressed for urgent interim relief, submitting that with only 11 days remaining for publication of the final electoral roll, it would be impossible to grant hearings to over 1.36 crore electors included in the Logical Discrepancy list. He argued that more than half of these cases involved minor orthographic variations that ought to be corrected suo motu on the basis of existing records.
The petition sought multiple reliefs, including setting aside the impugned SIR notifications, the conduct of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections on the basis of the 2025 electoral rolls, mandatory acceptance of Aadhaar in discrepancy cases, prohibition on bulk Form-7 submissions, withdrawal or curtailment of micro-observers, and directions to ensure that no voter lawfully enrolled since 2002 was removed from the rolls without following the due process of law.
The post Electoral roll revision: Supreme Court issues notice to Election Commission on Mamata Banerjee plea challenging SIR in West Bengal appeared first on India Legal.