Except West Bengal, SIR Took Place Smoothly In Other States: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally observed that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls had been conducted smoothly across the country except in West Bengal, while hearing a batch of petitions relating to the ongoing revision exercise in the State.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with petitions, including one filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, challenging aspects of the revision exercise and the characterisation of certain voters in the “logical discrepancy” list.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice referred to an article discussing the progress of the revision exercise across States.

“I was reading an article on SIR. Except West Bengal, every State... the article refers to which are the States governed by A party or B party, except West Bengal, where it has happened smoothly,” the Chief Justice remarked.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, for one of the petitioners, then told the bench that the category of 'logical discrepancy' has been applied only to West Bengal. He added that the ECI ordered the midnight transfer of the State's Chief Secretary, and no other State has witnessed such an action.

CJI said that though there were equally complicated issues in other States, "by and large", SIR went on smoothly there. "There is hardly any litigation (from other States) now. I think there are States where after the SIR, the rate is higher," CJI added. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu for the Election Commission of India stated that in Gujarat, it was double, and in UP, it was higher. Banerjee said that it was due to the population increase compared to the 2002 roll.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for petitioners, sought an extension of the deadline for freezing the electoral rolls, citing the ongoing adjudication of objections and the need to ensure procedural fairness.

Justice Bagchi responded that the Court would consider the request. 

Court says most issues are of logistical nature

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, drew the Court's attention to its previous directions, including the order requiring the constitution of appellate tribunals headed by former High Court judges to hear appeals against exclusions from electoral rolls.

He informed the Bench that the first supplementary list had already resulted in the disposal of approximately 27 lakh cases by judicial officers. Divan also outlined the reliefs sought in the petitions, prompting the Court to observe that most issues raised pertained to administrative steps to be undertaken by the Chief Justice of the High Court and related authorities.

“Most issues involve an administrative exercise to be undertaken by the Chief Justice or others, barring two issues where you are seeking intervention by us,” the Chief Justice noted.

Publication of Supplementary Lists 

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted that the entire supplementary list had not yet been made available to stakeholders and requested that soft copies be provided to all political parties.

Responding to these concerns, counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI), Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, stated that the Commission was willing to publish supplementary lists on a daily basis and had already placed a proposal before the Chief Justice of the High Court.

The Bench indicated that the responsibility for managing logistical aspects of the process had been entrusted to the Chief Justice of the High Court and advised parties to bring specific difficulties to the Court's attention if they persisted.

“This burden we have passed onto the Chief Justice of the High Court. If either side is facing any difficulty, then point out to us,” the Chief Justice said.

Justice Bagchi also suggested that constituencies going to polls in the first phase could be prioritized to ensure timely completion before scheduled deadlines.

The Court took note of the scale of the revision exercise and the workload placed on judicial officers tasked with adjudicating objections to the electoral rolls.

“More than two lakh objections are being decided by judicial officers. They have not taken a single leave,” the Chief Justice observed. The Court had earlier ordered the deputation of judicial officers to adjudicate the claims in view of the dispute between the State and the ECI over the appointment of State officers.

“Do you understand the kind of pressure we have put on judicial officers? It is not a question of apportioning blame, but ensuring a common platform through intervention,” Justice Bagch remarked, urging cooperation between stakeholders and the Election Commission.

Counsel for the Election Commission acknowledged the magnitude of the task, describing it as “humongous,” while noting that certain shortcomings had been identified and communicated to the High Court authorities.

The matter is scheduled to be taken up again tentatively on April 1.

Case Title: MOSTARI BANU Versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)