SC Issues Notice to EC; Mamata Questions "Why No SIR in Assam?", Next Hearing Monday
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a formal notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on petitions challenging the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, will hear the matter next on Monday, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal clash just months before the state’s assembly elections.
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who was present in court, personally argued that the SIR exercise is being rushed through in three months—a process that normally spans two years—and alleged that her state is being unfairly targeted. In a pointed accusation, she questioned why a similar revision was not being conducted in BJP-ruled Assam, calling the EC’s approach discriminatory.
Allegations of Large-Scale Voter Disenfranchisement
The Chief Minister, filing the petition under Article 32, contended that the SIR is arbitrary and could lead to the exclusion of millions of legitimate voters. She cited “logical discrepancies” in names—often due to dialectal variations or marital surname changes—as grounds for wrongful deletions. Her counsel highlighted that over 1.4 crore discrepancy notices have been issued, causing widespread public inconvenience.
“The fight is for larger public interest,” Banerjee told the bench, claiming she had written six unanswered letters to the EC. She alleged that micro-observers from BJP-ruled states are overriding local Electoral Registration Officers, deleting names without proper verification, and that many living individuals have been erroneously declared dead in the rolls.
EC’s Defense and Court’s Observations
Appearing for the Election Commission, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi defended the process, stating that all notices contain reasons and that agents are permitted to assist voters. However, the bench made strong oral observations, urging EC officials to act “a little sensible” and questioning the need for excessive micro-observers.
The court also acknowledged practical challenges, noting that completely withdrawing all notices—as sought by the petitioners—might be “impractical.” However, it emphasized that voters must be clearly informed why their names are flagged, especially when discrepancies arise from linguistic nuances.
Political Ramifications and Next Steps
The Trinamool Congress hailed the court’s notice as a “big win,” while the legal outcome could directly impact the 2026 West Bengal elections. Banerjee has demanded that polls be conducted using the 2025 electoral rolls, not the revised list.
With the Supreme Court scheduling a joint hearing of related petitions on Monday, all eyes are now on the Election Commission’s formal response. The case strikes at the heart of electoral integrity and federal fairness, setting a crucial precedent for how voter list revisions are conducted across India ahead of major elections.
