West Bengal SIR: Supreme Court Orders Safeguards, Allows Voters to Submit Objections Through Representatives

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi heard detailed submissions from Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan for the petitioners, and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for the Election Commission of India (ECI).

At the heart of the challenge was the ECI’s categorisation of voters under the SIR, particularly the category described as “logical discrepancy”, which, according to the petitioners, accounted for the largest number of voters flagged for verification.

CJI Surya Kant noted that approximately 1.25 crore notices had been issued under the SIR. These were divided into three categories: “mapped” voters linked to the 2002 SIR, “unmapped” voters not linked to the earlier revision, and “logical discrepancy” voters, numbering about 1.36 crore. The court observed that logical discrepancies included mismatches in parental names, or age gaps between parents, grandparents and electors, which had triggered notices.

Sibal argued that such criteria were arbitrary and disproportionately affected ordinary citizens. He pointed out that minor spelling variations in Bengali surnames, such as “Datta”, were being treated as discrepancies, leading to unnecessary notices. He urged the court to direct the authorities to publish the complete list of voters flagged under logical discrepancies and to ensure active assistance by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) during corrections.

Responding to the concerns, Dwivedi submitted that notices were not being issued merely for spelling errors and that issuance of notice did not automatically mean deletion of names. He maintained that the purpose was to allow voters to correct errors. Dwivedi also stressed that Booth Level Agents (BLAs) were appointed from all political parties, but could not be present in every individual hearing as a matter of right.

Justice Bagchi questioned why political party agents could not assist voters during hearings, especially when large numbers of people were affected. The CJI echoed the concern, observing that the process must be timely, fair and transparent, and should not impose undue hardship on voters, particularly the poor and those living in remote areas.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for an intervenor, flagged what he described as a lack of transparency, referring to a WhatsApp message allegedly circulated to district election officers stating that BLAs would not be permitted to attend hearings on objections. Divan questioned the legal basis of the “logical discrepancy” criteria, arguing that factors such as parental or grandparental age gaps had no statutory backing.

After hearing the parties, the Bench issued a series of directions. It ordered that the names of voters flagged under the “logical discrepancy” category be displayed at gram panchayat bhavans, block offices, taluka and subdivision offices, and ward offices in cities. The court permitted affected voters to submit documents and objections through authorised representatives, including BLAs, supported by an authority letter.

The Court further directed that facilities for submission of documents and objections be set up at panchayat and block offices, and asked the West Bengal government to provide adequate manpower to the ECI to ensure smooth functioning. The Director General of Police was directed to ensure there was no law and order problem during the exercise.

Importantly, the Bench directed that voters who had not yet submitted documents or objections be allowed to do so within an extended period. It also clarified that affected persons should be given an opportunity of hearing, and that officials receiving documents or conducting hearings must certify receipt.

The Bench also briefly heard a related plea concerning alleged violence against BLOs during the SIR process and indicated that the matter would be listed again for further consideration.

Emphasising balance, the CJI observed that while some correction exercise was necessary, it must be carried out in a manner that was transparent, non-arbitrary and did not cause undue stress to over a crore voters affected by the process.