Supreme Court Issues Notice to ECI on Mamata Banerjee’s Plea Challenging Electoral Roll Revision in West Bengal

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, questioning the legality, timing and manner of implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi directed the ECI to file its response by February 9. The Court observed that the deployment of micro-observers could be reconsidered if the state government provided a list of officers capable of discharging SIR-related duties. It also cautioned the authorities against issuing hearing notices for minor spelling errors, stressing the need for administrative sensitivity in electoral matters.

The petition challenges the constitutional validity of the SIR notifications dated June 24, 2025 and October 27, 2025. It alleges that the revision exercise has led to 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.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the Chief Minister, who also made brief oral submissions before the Court. The plea contends that the SIR functioned largely as a deletion-oriented exercise rather than a corrective or inclusive one, disproportionately impacting marginalised sections of voters.

Special emphasis was placed on the situation of women electors who, after marriage, change their surnames or residences. According to the petition, such voters were frequently placed in the ‘Logical Discrepancy’ list due to minor spelling variations or clerical inconsistencies arising from transliteration of Bengali names into English. It was argued that these discrepancies triggered hearing notices and deletion proceedings without due process or adherence to principles of natural justice.

The plea further alleges sustained inaction by the ECI despite repeated representations. It claims that the cumulative effect of the SIR has been systematic disenfranchisement, undermining free and fair elections, which have been recognised as part of the Constitution’s basic structure in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and subsequent judgments.

During the hearing, the Bench noted that several petitions concerning the West Bengal SIR were already pending and recalled that detailed directions had been issued on January 19, including requirements for transparency in verifying names placed in the Logical Discrepancy list. The petitioner, however, maintained that these directions were not being uniformly implemented on the ground.

The petition also alleges that the SIR was selectively enforced in West Bengal ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections, while similar exercises were not carried out with the same intensity in other states. Concerns were raised over inconsistent acceptance of Aadhaar as proof of identity, despite its permissibility under existing ECI guidelines and judicial precedents, subject to statutory limits.

It was further argued that the compressed timeline of the revision, conducted during agricultural and festive seasons, imposed undue hardship on voters and election staff. The plea referred to reports of extreme workload, hospitalisations and fatalities among Booth Level Officers, raising questions about administrative proportionality and procedural fairness.

Objections were also raised to the appointment of nearly 8,000 micro-observers, who were alleged to be exercising supervisory powers beyond their statutory remit, thereby undermining the authority of Electoral Registration Officers, Assistant EROs and BLOs. The petition claims that over 58 lakh electors were affected during the process, including cases where living voters were wrongly marked as deceased.

The Court 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, stating 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 despite repeated requisitions. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu supported this submission, attributing the deployment to administrative necessity.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that ECI officials were facing hostility in the state and sought listing of a pending public interest litigation seeking protection for election personnel along with the present matter. The Bench agreed to hear both matters together on the next date.

Pressing for interim relief, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan submitted 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 a majority of these cases involved minor orthographic variations that should be corrected suo motu on the basis of existing records.

The petition seeks multiple reliefs, including setting aside the impugned SIR notifications, conducting the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections on the basis of the 2025 electoral rolls, mandatory acceptance of Aadhaar in discrepancy cases, prohibition of bulk Form-7 submissions, curtailment or withdrawal of micro-observers, and directions ensuring that no voter enrolled since 2002 is removed without due process of law.