YESTERDAY, the Supreme Court issued notice in West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's challenge to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M Pancholi heard submissions from the state, the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Banerjee, who was present in court and addressed the bench in person.
Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Kalyan Bandopadhyay represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared on behalf of the Election Commission of India.
Background of the petition
Banerjee has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India, challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process ongoing in the state of West Bengal. The petition was filed on January 28, stating that the ongoing process will result in "large-scale disenfranchisement" caused by "the opaque, hasty, unconstitutional and illegal actions of the ECI."
Alleging serious irregularities in the classification of individuals under the 'Logical Discrepancy' (LD) category, Banerjee claims that the list of such persons has not been uploaded online despite directions of the Court. She contends that the failure to publish the LD list on the official portal has deprived affected persons of transparency and an effective opportunity to respond. Expressing lack of confidence with the SIR process, Banerjee has sought a direction that the polls be conducted based on the existing rolls prepared last year.
Naidu: We have not been served with any pleadings
Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the ECI, informed the Court that they had not been served with the pleadings and requested a week's time to obtain instructions. However, Chief Justice Kant pointed out that a week's time would be too late given the tight timeline of the SIR process.
"Entire procedure has a timeline...we have extended for 10 days...out of that, only 4 days left...after that, only 11 days left. We can't grant luxury of 1 week," the CJI observed, emphasizing the urgency of the matter.
Supreme Court: We want to ensure no genuine citizen is left out
Shortly into Chief Minister Banerjee’s submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the Court was keenly seeking a solution to the problem of genuine citizens being excluded from SIR. He recalled that Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the West Bengal government, had raised the issue of exclusion of bonafide citizens in the past. The SIR, CJI Surya Kant reiterated, only sought to exclude three classes of individuals: i) those who were dead persons, ii) those who have been disqualified due to reasons such as conviction, and iii) migrants who have now left West Bengal.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for the West Bengal government, had pointed out in the past that beyond these three classes, genuine citizens were being excluded due to mismatch of surname spellings arising from the differences in pronunciations of local dialects, which is not accurately captured during computerisation.
“Every problem has a solution,” CJI Kant said, “We must ensure that no innocent citizen is left out.”
Banerjee: SIR process only for deletion, not inclusion
Arguing impassionately, the Chief Minister pointed out that the problems exceeded far beyond that of surname mismatches, and that the SIR was inherently exclusionary. She explained two situations: first, when a daughter is married and goes to her in-laws’ house, and changes her surname to her husband’s surname, there also it is accounting for a mismatch problem by the Election Commission; second, she pointed out that after some daughters married and left for their in-laws’ house, since they changed addresses, their names were deleted. Banerjee noted that people could change houses for any number of reasons, particularly employment related.
Banerjee also pointed out that despite the Supreme Court’s order last September to include Aadhar as an accepted document for SIR, in West Bengal the ECI was unwilling to accept Aadhar.
Banerjee argued that only opposition states going into elections were being targeted through the SIR, by conducting in hurry an exercise that should have been undertaken over two years, even while states like Assam have been spared.
Responding to Banerjee, CJI Kant first pointed out that the validity of Aadhar as an accepted document for the SIR remained contested, even as the Court in its interim order had mandated its inclusion. “You will appreciate that Aadhar card has its own limitations,” he noted, stating that the reading together of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, under which the Aadhar card is issued, and Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, is a determination the Court is yet to make. He reminded that the Supreme Court’s decision on the validity of SIR has been reserved, as of January 29, 2026.
On the issue of discrepancy, CJI Kant suggested that the West Bengal government can provide a team of officers to ECI, who could be appointed on deputation, and verify where spelling mistakes have occurred due to local dialects, and those could be rectified.
Banerjee: Citizens of West Bengal targeted through micro-observers
Banerjee raised issues with the appointment of micro-observers by the ECI to overlook the SIR. She noted that the powers of Electoral Registration Officers (‘EROs’) and Booth Level Officers were being usurped in such a manner. She also alleged that the 8,300 micro-observers appointed by the ECI were people from BJP ruled states, who were responsible for deleting names by relying on artificial intelligence “sitting inside the Election Commission office.” This, she explained, was how 58 lakh voters were deleted in the draft SIR in December 2025.
Dwivedi: West Bengal government is not co-operating
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, argued that micro-observers have been validly appointed under Section 13C of the RP Act, which discusses the appointment of Assistant Electoral Registration Officers. He noted that the ECI had sent several letters to the West Bengal government to give names of Group B officers, of the rank of Sub-Divisional Magistrate or equivalent, so that EROs could be appointed. However, the government only sent back eighty names, most of whom were working under government pressure.
Since there are no statutory rules guiding as to what measures may be taken if a state government does not cooperate, the ECI was compelled to appoint observers to assist Group C officers.
Catching on to this, Banerjee retorted that unlike larger states, West Bengal only had 23 districts, and SDMs were appointed district wise, pointing out that being a small state, it lacked the manpower. “Whatever we have the strength, we have included all [the names],” she noted, “We are co-operating.”
Supreme Court: West Bengal to share names of Group B officers with ECI
Issuing notice in the matter, CJI Kant directed the West Bengal government to share with the ECI, names of Group B officers who can be spared for the exercise. “Once the officers are made available, then micro-observers will not be required,” he noted.
The Court also took note of the submission of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union government that in a separate writ petition, an affidavit had been filed by the ECI in which the ECI has pointed out different issues it has been facing in the SIR exercise. That affidavit, Mehta said, could have a bearing on this case.
The Court listed that matter, along with the present matter, for hearing next on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 2 P.M.
