The Supreme Court has directed that serving and retired judicial officers will adjudicate claims and objections arising from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The Court took this step after noting an extraordinary breakdown of trust between the State Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI).
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order while hearing a batch of petitions, including:
- Mostari Banu v. The Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 (and connected cases)
- Joy Goswami v. Election Commission of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 126/2026
- Mamata Banerjee v. Election Commission of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 129/2026
- Sanatani Sangsad and Anr. v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1216/2025
The Bench described the situation as an “unfortunate blame game” marked by “allegations and counter-allegations.” According to the Court, a clear “trust deficit” exists between two constitutional bodies — the democratically elected State Government and the ECI. Therefore, it held that extraordinary circumstances required an extraordinary measure.
Judicial Officers to Perform ERO Functions
The Court directed that judicial officers will discharge functions normally performed by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) while deciding pending claims under the “logical discrepancy” category.
Accordingly, the Bench requested the Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta to spare serving judicial officers as well as retired officers in the rank of Additional District Judge or District Judge.
Each judicial officer will receive assistance from micro-observers appointed by the ECI and officers already deployed by the State Government. However, the Court clarified that this arrangement is temporary and limited to the present situation.
Since the deployment of judicial officers may affect regular court work, the Bench authorised the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, in consultation with the Registrar General and District Judges, to evolve interim arrangements. Urgent matters may be shifted to alternate courts.
Dispute Over Officers for SIR Duties
The present order followed sharp exchanges between the State and the ECI over compliance with earlier directions to provide sufficient Group B officers for SIR duties.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the State, submitted that Group B officers had already been provided. In contrast, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, argued that Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs), who exercise quasi-judicial powers, were not deputed.
Sibal contended that in West Bengal, SDMs fall under Group A. He further argued that SDM-rank officers were unnecessary because the Court had already clarified that micro-observers cannot issue final orders.
The Bench expressed dissatisfaction with the State’s stand. The Chief Justice observed:
“They are asking as EROs. We are disappointed to see. We were expecting cooperation by state.”
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, alleged that after the Court restrained micro-observers from issuing orders, the ECI introduced a new category called “Special Roll Officers.” He questioned whether such officers could override ERO decisions.
“Special roll observer cannot trump ERO. How can they on wholesale basis reject what ERO has done?” he submitted.
Naidu denied the allegation. He stated that Special Roll Observers existed from the inception of the process. He also submitted that the ECI had not faced similar operational challenges in any other State.
Court’s Intervention
Given the continued disagreement, the Bench indicated that it would involve the State judiciary to ensure neutrality and fairness. The Chief Justice observed that the Court might request assistance from the State judiciary or, if necessary, from outside the State.
Justice Bagchi stated that since hesitation existed on both sides, judicial officers would be appointed.
Ultimately, both parties accepted the proposal. Divan stated that judicial officers could replace micro-observers and special roll observers. Meanwhile, Naidu submitted that authorities had not acted against individuals who allegedly made provocative speeches targeting ECI officials.
Publication of Electoral Roll and Administrative Directions
The Court permitted publication of the final voters’ list on February 28 to the extent the process stands completed. It clarified that the ECI may publish supplementary lists thereafter.
Further, the Bench directed the Collector and Superintendent of Police to provide full logistical support to the judicial officers and their teams. For this purpose, they will be treated as being on deemed deputation and must comply with all directions issued from time to time.
Additionally, the Director General of Police must file a supplementary affidavit detailing steps taken in response to complaints regarding threats made against SIR officers.
Earlier Orders
On the previous date of hearing, the Court directed the State to provide Group B officers to replace micro-observers deployed by the ECI. It also clarified that only Electoral Registration Officers may pass final orders on claims and objections. Micro-observers may assist, but they cannot adjudicate.
The Court further directed the Director General of Police to file a personal affidavit responding to concerns raised by the ECI regarding alleged threats and violence against SIR officials. Moreover, it extended the deadline for scrutiny of documents and objections by at least one week beyond February 14, the original date fixed for publication of the final list.
Earlier, in January, the Court issued additional directions to ensure transparent verification of individuals listed under the “logical discrepancy” category after publication of the draft roll. Subsequently, Kapil Sibal orally informed the Court that the ECI was not complying with those directions.
Extraordinary Circumstances
Explaining its latest decision, the Bench emphasised that entrusting adjudicatory functions to judicial officers became necessary due to exceptional circumstances. The Court stated that this arrangement aims to ensure fairness in verifying documents and deciding inclusion or exclusion of names from the electoral roll.
The matter will continue under the Court’s supervision as the SIR process progresses in West Bengal.
