Send name-discrepancy notices with care: Supreme Court to ECI

The Supreme Court on Wednesday cautioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) to exercise due care while issuing notices to voters flagged as “logical discrepancies” – name mismatch, during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, observing that linguistic variations and local dialect differences must not result in wrongful exclusion of genuine voters.

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation petition filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in her individual capacity challenging the SIR and seeking a direction that the upcoming State Assembly elections be conducted on the basis of the 2025 electoral rolls.

Advertisement

The Court’s observations came amid concerns raised over nearly 1,30 crore names categorised as “logical discrepancies”, which includes 70 lakh names relating to spelling variations.

“Please send notices carefully. You cannot put out notable authors etc.,” the Chief Justice told the ECI, stressing the need for sensitivity in the process. The obvious reference to notable authors was to Nobel laureate Amartya Sen whose name too has figured in the category of logical discrepancies.

Appearing for Banerjee, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan questioned the manner in which names under the logical discrepancy category were being flagged and displayed. Referring to the Court’s earlier direction allowing public display of such lists, he said the exercise had led to confusion and hardship.

To this, CJI Kant said, “I had the advantage of my two brothers from West Bengal (Justices Bagchi and Dipankar Datta). They told me how pass certificates are issued and that is why we included it.”

Divan then highlighted the scale of the problem, stating: “Please see the brief note by the petitioner… see the number of days left to complete the hearing—only 4 days. Unmapped voters are 32 lakh. 1.36 crore in logical discrepancy list. Hearings pending 63 lakh… number of micro-observers deputed is 8,300. They are not contemplated under the Constitution at all… Domicile certificates, Aadhaar, OBC certificate—none of these are being accepted. People are in 4–5 hours queues.”

He further argued that the ECI had failed to disclose reasons for including individual names in the logical discrepancy list. “Some short reasons must be given. People should know why they are not in the list,” Divan said.

Justice Bagchi noted that the Court had been informed that reasons were uploaded on the ECI website. CJI Kant added: “Yes, to the extent the person should know is fine… only thing is the mode in which they are informed. We were told that the list is not only communicated, but individual notices are being given.”

Divan urged the Court to direct the ECI to withdraw all notices pertaining solely to name mismatches. When the CJI remarked that such a direction might be impractical, Divan pointed out that nearly 70 lakh discrepancies were limited to spelling issues.

Illustrating the problem, CJI Kant observed: “Suppose one person writes Dutta and some may spell it as Datta…”

Justice Bagchi added, “Same with Bandhopadhyay.”

Addressing ECI counsel and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, the CJI said: “Some discrepancy is due to how you speak in local dialect… such things happen pan India.”

Justice Bagchi elaborated, “Mr Dwivedi, in Bengal you will be called Mr Dibedi. Bengali language does not have a ‘va’.”

When the CJI remarked that his name would be pronounced correctly in Bengal, Banerjee interjected:
“No it will not, Sir.”

The Bench suggested that the West Bengal government could provide a team to assist the ECI in identifying errors arising from linguistic and dialectal variations. Banerjee welcomed the suggestion, saying, “I belong to that State. I am very grateful because of your kindness. When justice is crying behind the door… then we thought we are not getting justice anywhere. We wrote 6 letters to the Election Commission. I am a bonded labourer… I prefer that, I am not fighting for my party.”

The CJI responded by underscoring the objective of the SIR while cautioning against mechanical exclusions: “Every problem has a solution… one objective is to weed out the dead, then to weed out those who are disqualified… migrants—genuine persons—must remain on the rolls… but by virtue of this kind of mistake, such bonafide persons cannot be left out… the entire procedure has a timeline.”

Banerjee, however, alleged large-scale targeting of West Bengal, stating: “They only targeted West Bengal on the eve of the election… They wanted to do something in 2 months which takes 2 years… BLOs committed suicide and they blamed the election officials… West Bengal is targeted, why not Assam?”

She also criticised the deployment of micro-observers from BJP ruled states, alleging political bias. Dwivedi countered by stating that the ECI had repeatedly requested Class II officers from the State and had received inadequate cooperation.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, told the Court that there was an atmosphere of hostility towards ECI officials in the State.

The Court ultimately issued notice in Banerjee’s petition and related matters and listed them for further hearing on Monday, February 9.

As the hearing concluded, Banerjee urged the Court: “Please protect the people’s rights. We are grateful.”

The Court has already reserved judgment in earlier petitions challenging the SIR process nationwide, after the exercise—initially undertaken in Bihar—was extended to several States including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.