The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that a practical solution could be worked out in the challenge to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.
Chief Justice Surya Kant directed the State to furnish, by Monday, a list of Group B officers who could be spared and made available. The direction signalled the Court’s intent to address administrative concerns linked to the revision exercise.
The Bench also ordered that notice be issued in both petitions before it.
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who was present in Courtroom No 1, urged the Court to protect the rights of the people and thanked the Bench for hearing the matter. After the hearing, she left the Supreme Court premises.
Court to hear all connected petitions together
During the hearing, the Solicitor General informed the Court that there was another pending petition in which the Election Commission of India had already filed an affidavit. He submitted that the issues raised in that case would have a bearing on the present proceedings.
Taking note of the submission, the Chief Justice directed that the matter also be listed on Monday. The Court observed that all connected issues relating to the SIR process would be heard together on that day.
The petitions challenge the Special Intensive Revision exercise being carried out in West Bengal, alleging voter deletions and procedural irregularities ahead of elections.
Mamata Banerjee alleges selective deletions and document hurdles
Appearing in person before the Supreme Court, Banerjee alleged that the SIR process was being used primarily to delete names from the electoral rolls.
Addressing the Bench, she said she belonged to the state and was “grateful for the kindness” shown by the Court. She warned that when justice is “crying behind closed doors,” it creates a sense that justice is not being delivered anywhere.
Describing herself as a “bonded labourer,” the Chief Minister told the Court that her fight was not for her political party but for a larger public cause. She said she had written six letters to the Election Commission raising objections to the SIR exercise.
By way of illustration, Banerjee referred to women whose surnames change after marriage. She said questions were being raised over why a woman was using her husband’s surname after moving to her in-laws’ home, leading to deletions from the voters’ list.
She also claimed that poor residents who had purchased flats or shifted residences were being removed from the rolls. Despite this, she alleged, authorities were categorising such cases as “incorrect mapping,” in violation of earlier directions issued by the Court.
Banerjee told the Bench that people in Bengal felt relief after the Court directed that Aadhaar be accepted as one of the valid documents. She pointed out that other states accept documents such as domicile and caste certificates, while Bengal was being singled out on the eve of elections.
Political fallout and background to the dispute
The case stems from Banerjee’s petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of the SIR process conducted by the Election Commission of India. In her plea, she alleged that the exercise had caused “immense inconvenience” to citizens and raised serious procedural and legal concerns.
The dispute between the Trinamool Congress leadership and the Commission escalated earlier this week after Banerjee walked out of a meeting with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of misconduct. She has also filed a separate case against the Commission and the state’s Chief Electoral Officer.
Banerjee, who holds a law degree and briefly practised as a lawyer until 2003, is currently in New Delhi along with families from West Bengal who claim to have been affected by the SIR process.
Outside the court, political reactions followed. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi criticised the revision exercise, alleging that it was “being done in a one-sided manner” and accused the Election Commission of acting at the behest of the BJP. She said Banerjee was fighting the case “from the front” and warned that continued arbitrariness would be challenged through legal and constitutional means.