WB SIR : 'Trust Deficit' Between Bengal Govt & ECI Forces Supreme Court To Appoint Judicial Officers For SIR Duty

Given the "trust deficit" between the West Bengal Government and the Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the appointment of judicial officers for the adjudication of claims and objections in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State.

The judicial officers are to perform the function of the Electoral Register Officers (ERO) in the process. The Court took this step in view of the dispute as to whether sufficient Group B officers in the rank of SDM have been provided by the State to the ECI to function as EROs. The State, on its part, objected to the ECI relying on the micro-observers and special roll observers appointed by it.

In the order, the bench observed that there was "an unfortunate blame game" and "allegations and counter-allegations", which indicated a "trust deficit between two Constitutional bodies, namely the democratically elected State Government and the Election Commission of India"

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi observed :

"In order to ensure fairness in the adjudication of the genuineness of the documents and consequential inclusion/exclusion in voters list, and as agreed to by both sides, we are left with hardly any other option but to request the hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Calcutta to spare serving judicial officers along with some former judicial officers in the rank of Addl District Judge or District Judges who can then be requested to revisit/dispose of the pending claims under the category of 'logical discrepancy'. Each such judicial officer/former judicial officer shall be assisted by micro observers from the ECI and officers from the State Government who have already been deployed for such duties.

The circumstances being extraordinary, the entrustment to judicial officers/former judicial officers is also extra ordinary. We are also conscisous of the fact that this may also have impact on the pending court cases also. The Chief Justice, with the assistance of the Committee of Registrar General and District Judges, may evovle some interim arrangement for the shifting of matters requiring urgent relief to alternate courts."

The Court allowed the publication of the final list of voters, so far as the process is completed, on the scheduled date of February 28. The Court said that the ECI can publish supplementary lists after the final date.

The Court directed that the Collector and SP must render assistance and provide all logistic support to the judicial officers and team for smooth completion of pending process. The Collector and SP shall be under deemed deputation for the purpose of ensuring compliance of directions that may be issued from time to time.

The Court also directed the Director General of Police to file a supplementary affidavit on the steps taken on complaints regarding threats to SIR officers.

State and the ECI raise allegations against each other

As soon as the hearing began, the State and the ECI raised disputes over the State's compliance with the Court's previous direction to make available a sufficient number of Group B officers for the SIR duties.

While Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, for the State, maintained that Group B officers were given, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the ECI, said that SDM rank officers who can pass quasi-judicial orders were not given.

Sibal said that SDM was a Group A officer in the State, and said that to substitute the 'micro-observers' appointed by the ECI, SDM rank officers are not required, since the Court's order stated that orders cannot be passed by micro-observers.

The bench however expressed disappointment with the State's stand, noting that officers are required for working as Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), CJI "They are asking as EROs. We are disappointed to see. We were expecting cooperation by state."

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for Mamata Banerjee, submitted that after the Court's last order restrained micro-observers from passing orders, the ECI has introduced a new "species of officers" called the Special Roll Officers, who are scrutinising the files cleared by the EROs. "Special roll observer cannot trump ERO. How can they on wholesale basis reject what ERO has done?" Divan said. Naidu however, refuted this claim and said that Special Roll Observers were there right from the inception.

Naidu said that the ECI has not encountered the difficulties it has faced in West Bengal in any other state.

Exasperated with the situation, the bench said that it will appoint judicial officers for the SIR duty, given the friction between the ECI and the State.

"Either we will involve state judiciary...we will request CJ...or alternate is to request them to bring officers from outside...if you don't complete SIR, both sides must understand..." CJI said.

"Since there is an element of hesitance from both sides, we will appoint judicial officers," Justice Bagchi said. Both sides accepted the bench's move to appoint judicial officers. "Let them replace the micro observers and special roll observers, judicial officers can be appointed," Divan submitted.

Naidu also submitted that no action has been taken on provocative speeches made against ECI officials.

On the last date, the Court issued a slew of directions with respect to SIR in West Bengal. It directed the State to make available to the Election Commission of India Group B officers for SIR duties, who can replace the micro-observers deployed by the ECI. The Court also clarified that final orders on claims and objections can be passed only by the Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), and that the micro-observers can only assist them.

It further directed the Director General of Police of the State to file a personal affidavit responding to the concerns raised by the ECI regarding failure to stop threats and violence against SIR officials. The Court also ordered that the deadline for the scrutiny of documents and objections be extended at least for a week from February 14, the scheduled date for publication of the final list.

In January, the Court had issued another set 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.

Case Title:

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

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

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

(4) SANATANI SANGSAD AND ANR. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1216/2025

Also Read - Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 'Logical Discrepancy' Category Applied By ECI In West Bengal SIR