West Bengal SIR: ECI Tells Supreme Court Micro Observers Appointed After State Failed to Provide Officers

Senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI), told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the Commission was compelled to appoint micro observers for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal after the State failed to provide an adequate number of Class II officers, responding to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s allegation that such observers were being empowered to delete voters’ names.

As part of additional safeguards during the SIR exercise, the ECI has appointed IAS officers from central government departments in neighbouring states and Delhi as roll observers in West Bengal. Their mandate is to ensure that no eligible voter is excluded from the electoral rolls during the exercise. The observers remain stationed at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and oversee the process from claims and objections to the final publication of the rolls. By January 20, the total number of roll observers deployed in the state had risen to 37.

Dwivedi submitted that the ECI had repeatedly requested the State to nominate Class II officers as electoral registration officers, but only around 80 officers had been made available, making it necessary for the Commission to deploy micro observers ahead of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.

The submissions were made before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, which was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the SIR process. Court issued notice in the petitions, including one filed by Banerjee, and granted time to the ECI to file its reply. The matter has been listed for further hearing on Monday, February 9, 2026.

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee appeared in person and sought permission to argue her case. Banerjee, who holds a law degree from Jogesh Chandra Choudhury College of Law, Calcutta, and last practised in 2003, alleged that the SIR was not an addition exercise but effectively a deletion exercise.

Earlier in the hearing, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for another petitioner in a connected matter, submitted that more than 1.4 crore voters had been issued notices to produce documents. He pointed out that despite the court’s earlier directions, the logical discrepancy list had not been properly displayed, and flagged the large number of pending applications and hearings, arguing that there was an acute shortage of time to complete the exercise.

Divan further contended that voters were being flagged for discrepancies in name mapping without being individually informed of the reasons. Responding to this, the CJI observed that individuals must be told why their names had been flagged, adding that the court agreed with this requirement. However, the Bench noted that it had been informed that individual notices were also being issued apart from the list, a position confirmed by counsel for the ECI.

Divan then sought directions to the ECI to withdraw notices pertaining solely to name mismatches. The CJI remarked that many such discrepancies appeared to arise from regional dialect differences rather than actual mismatches, noting that similar issues had arisen in Haryana and other states. Divan suggested that, given the limited time remaining, the appropriate solution would be withdrawal of such notices.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal intervened to remind the court that the ECI had earlier assured that such discrepancies would not be acted upon.

Beginning her submissions, Banerjee alleged that people frequently change residences due to marriage or employment and that women often change their names after marriage, leading to discrepancies in identity documents. She accused the ECI of targeting opposition-ruled states, including West Bengal, on the eve of elections.

She also contended that a process that should have taken two years was being compressed into three months, claiming that over 100 booth-level officers had died during the exercise. Banerjee further alleged that documents such as domicile certificates were not being accepted and that micro observers appointed by the ECI were being authorised to delete names without granting any hearing to affected voters.

Interjecting, the CJI said the court understood that Banerjee was aggrieved but assured her that counsel in the connected matters were placing all issues before the court exhaustively.

On the issue of Aadhaar, the CJI said he could not comment as judgment on the validity of the SIR had already been reserved, adding that Aadhaar itself had limitations. To address voter deletions arising solely from name mismatches, he suggested that a team of state officers well-versed in the local language could be deputed with the ECI to verify discrepancies.

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the ECI had filed an affidavit in one of the matters and sought its listing, adding that the Commission had expressed concerns about an atmosphere of hostility towards its officials.

Banerjee disputed this, stating that the State government was cooperating fully and had provided everything requested by the ECI, including officers.

Taking note of the submissions, Court issued notice in the petitions filed by Dola Sen, Mamata Banerjee and other petitioners.

The SIR of electoral rolls in West Bengal is being carried out by the ECI ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections to update and verify voter records. The exercise involves house-to-house verification, issuance of draft rolls, and calling voters for hearings to resolve “unmapped” entries and “logical discrepancies” such as inconsistencies in age, names or relationships when matched with earlier rolls when compared with previous rolls.

The process has seen notices sent to a large number of electors and triggered controversy over potential deletions and enfranchisement issues.

The exercise, governed by the ECI’s powers under the Constitution and electoral law, aims to include eligible voters and remove ineligible ones, but has been politically contentious in West Bengal with allegations of arbitrariness and risks of voter exclusion. While the ECI maintains that the exercise is meant to ensure accuracy, political parties and the petitioners in the abovementioned petitions have alleged arbitrariness and a lack of adequate safeguards during the verification process.

Case Title: Mostari Bapu vs Election Commission of India and Anr with connected matters

Hearing Date: February 4, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi