The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls proceeded smoothly in all states except West Bengal, despite comparable or more complex issues elsewhere. Upon hearing the matter, a notice was issued to a notice on Delhi government’s application challenging the ban on diesel and petrol vehicles in the capital. (HT Photo)
Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the SIR in the state, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “Except WB, in every state it has happened smoothly. There were issues more complicated, if not equally complicated, but there were hardly any cases before the court. These were states such as Gujarat where the deletion of voters was much higher.”
In Gujarat, 6.8 million voters were deleted after the SIR, reducing the electorate from over 50 million to 44 million.
Appearing for West Bengal, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee said the Election Commission of India (ECI) had uniquely introduced the category of “logical discrepancy” in the state, placing around 13.6 million voters in a suspect list. He added that no other state saw such measures, including the transfer of the chief secretary.
Given the scale of claims, the court adopted a “novel method”, requesting the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to assign adjudication to judicial officers, including those from neighbouring states.
Ahead of polls scheduled for April 23 and 29, the Mamata Banerjee government urged the court to freeze electoral rolls and allow candidates flagged under “logical discrepancy” to contest.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the chief minister, said urgency was critical as 14 candidates were unable to file nominations due to pending claims. He also stressed that rolls must be finalised at least a week before polling.
The bench said it would speak to the Calcutta High Court chief justice to prioritise constituencies voting in the first phase. “If it is possible to hive out constituencies and have the adjudication initially conducted for constituencies going to polls in the first phase,” it said, posting the matter for April 1.
Representing the ECI, senior advocate Dama Sesadari Naidu pointed to “practical difficulties and shortcomings” in a sealed cover submission.
The court acknowledged the “burden” on judicial officers. “The bottomline of our initiative is that the fundamental right to participate in elections is protected. This burden we have passed on to the CJ of the high court.”
When Banerjee sought reasons for rejection of 2.7 million claims already decided, the bench said, “You do not understand the kind of pressure on these judicial officers. They have not even taken a single leave. It is not a question of apportioning blame but after all this, do you think, they should also give reasons.”
Last month, the top court had asked the Calcutta High Court to requisition judicial officers from West Bengal, Jharkhand and Odisha, along with 250 serving and retired district judges, to adjudicate nearly 5 million claims and objections involving voters flagged for “logical discrepancy”.
These include cases of voters mapped to more than six progeny; age gaps under 15 years with parents; individuals above 45 missing from 2002 rolls; mismatches in fathers’ names between 2002 and 2005 lists; age gaps under 40 years with grandparents; age gaps over 50 years with parents; and gender mismatches with 2002 records.
The court said adjudication would be based on 11 documents listed by the ECI, its September 8, 2025 order permitting Aadhaar as identity proof, and its January 19 order allowing Madhyamik (Class 10) certificates and admit cards.