West Bengal SIR | Supreme Court Asks ECI To Be 'More Sensitive' In Issuing Notices Over Name Spelling Mismatches

While hearing the West Bengal SIR matter, the Supreme Court today told the Election Commission of India to instruct its officers to be more "sensitive" while issuing notices to persons citing "logical discrepancy" due to minor mismatches in name-spellings.

CJI Surya Kant conveyed this to ECI following the submissions by CM Mamata Banerjee, who appeared in person, on the inconvenience caused to electors in West Bengal due to ECI's notices over "logical discrepancies" as well as on considering the plea of renowned poet Joy Goswami, who was reportedly characterized as "umapped" in the SIR process.

Insofar as CM Banerjee's claim about micro-observers taking over the process and deleting voters, while leaving no power with EROs, the CJI also assured the State that if necessary, the bench will pass directions for every document to be signed by the Booth Level Officers, who are actually authorized.

A bench of CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was seized of 4 petitions relating to the West Bengal SIR matter. CM Mamata Banerjee's was the latest petition, filed on January 28, stating that the ongoing SIR process will result in "large-scale disenfranchisement" caused by "the opaque, hasty, unconstitutional and illegal actions of the ECI".

During the hearing, CM Mamata Banerjee assailed ECI's characterisation of many electors as "unmapped" under the "logical discrepancy" category. She pointed out that women, whose names and addresses were changed after marriage, were issued notices by the ECI. She further contended that many electors who are alive have been declared dead by the ECI.

Taking into account the submissions, as well as the case of poet Joy Goswami (represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan), CJI Kant told the poll body to instruct its officers to be more circumspect. "Joy Goswami - he is a renowned author, [Ananda] Puraskar awardee...there might be some mistake...please tell your officers also to be little bit sensitive. Don't issue notice to persons like [him]..." said the CJI to Senior Advocate DS Naidu (for ECI).

State govt can provide ECI assistance of officers conversant with local dialect: CJI

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, on behalf of CM Mamata Banerjee, told the Court that majority of cases (more than 50%) flagged under the "logical discrepancy" category relate to minor name mismatches and/or spelling differences and are crunching the already limited available amount of time for verification.

Responding to the submissions, CJI Kant posed to ECI, "What is your solution for this? what about this kind of discrepancies which are not even due to spelling mistake, but only on account of how you speak in the local dialect...this happened pan-India...this happened in Haryana and Punjab also."

At this point, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, referred to the last hearing, where the ECI assured that instructions had been issued to its officers to not send notices to electors over spelling differences.

In a lighter vein, Justice Bagchi pointed out to Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi (for ECI) that even his surname (Dwivedi) would be pronounced differently in Bengali. "And you will also be [ousted]", joked CJI Surya Kant. "Bengali language does not have a 'va'....", said Justice Bagchi, while CJI Kant noted how Justice Vipul Pancholi's name would also be pronounced differently in Bengali.

Subsequently, the CJI remarked that there would be no mistake with his name, as it's essentially a Bengali name. CM Mamata Banerjee however differed, saying,  "Sir, it may be".

At last, CJI Kant offered a suggestion that the state can spare and depute some of its officers, well-conversant with the local dialect, to the ECI, so they can help distinguish local dialect discrepancies from identity-based discrepancies. "If state govt provides a team of officials who are well-conversant in Bangla and with local dialect...and they scrutinize this...and tell ECI that there is only a local dialect mistake and not an identity mistake...it will help", the CJI said.

Background

In her petition, CM Mamata Banerjee alleged serious irregularities in the classification of individuals under the 'Logical Discrepancy' (LD) category, claiming that the list of such persons has not been uploaded online despite directions of the Court. She contended that the failure to publish the LD list on the official portal has deprived affected persons of transparency and an effective opportunity to respond.

The petition further alleged that “alarming information” has been received from several districts, including Malda, indicating that around 20,000 cases were moved from the 'Others' category to the 'Logical Discrepancy' category on the morning of January 22, 2026. The plea claims that this reclassification took place after the Supreme Court passed an order on January 19, 2026.

Terming the move a “nefarious plan”, the CM has alleged that the respondent-authorities deliberately increased the number of LD cases after the Court's order and subsequently sought to publish an extensive list of persons marked under the category.

“This is highly illegal and reflects brazen impunity of law and a complete disregard of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court,” the petition states.

Expressing lack of confidence with the SIR process, the CM has sought a direction that the polls be conducted based on the existing rolls prepared last year. She had earlier written to the Chief Election Commissioner stating that the process was being carried out in violation of the Representation of People Act and the Rules.

Earlier, TMC MP Derek Obrien had moved an application before the Supreme Court, contending that the ECI was issuing informal instructions to the Electoral Officers.

In January, the Court issued a slew of directions to the ECI to ensure a smooth and transparent verification of persons included in the 'logical discrepancy' list after the publication of the draft roll. Subsequently, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal orally told the Court that the ECI was not following the directions.

Also from today's hearing - 'Bengal Is Targeted, We Aren't Getting Justice' : Mamata Banerjee Argues In Supreme Court Against SIR

Case Title:

(1) MAMATA BANERJEE Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 129/2026

(2) JOY GOSWAMI Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 126/2026

(3) MOSTARI BANU v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)