SC says electoral roll revision smooth nationwide; flags Bengal-specific concerns

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls had proceeded largely smoothly across the country, with concerns being raised mainly in West Bengal.

Referring to a write-up on the SIR, Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading a Bench that also comprised Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said, “I read an article on SIR. Apart from West Bengal, it happened smoothly everywhere.”

Advertisement

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for West Bengal, submitted that the situation in the state was marked by several unusual developments not seen elsewhere.

He pointed out that only in West Bengal had the Election Commission of India (ECI) issued a “logical discrepancy list” and taken administrative decisions at odd hours during the process, including late-night notifications, which, according to him, added to the complexity of the exercise.

Responding to the Court’s observation that voter numbers had increased in some states following the revision exercise, Banerjee maintained that such increases were attributable to population growth over the last 20 years, noting that the previous revision had taken place in 2003. “That is because of the population increase after 2002. A 20 per cent rise is nothing,” he said.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted the immense pressure placed on judicial officers tasked with handling claims and objections arising from the revision. He noted that a large volume of cases—running into lakhs—had to be adjudicated within a short timeframe.

Banerjee echoed this concern, describing the pace of the exercise as excessively demanding and practically unworkable. He reiterated that a process of this scale would ordinarily require a much longer duration, extending over two to three years.

At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that the situation in West Bengal presented certain unique challenges but emphasised that the Court’s primary focus remained on safeguarding the democratic right to vote.

It noted that while logistical or administrative concerns were being raised, the larger objective of ensuring inclusive electoral rolls and enabling voter participation guided its approach.

The Court also observed that many of the issues flagged appeared to be administrative in nature and could be addressed at the appropriate level, including by the Calcutta High Court or the authorities overseeing the revision process.