Banerjee claimed that Special Roll Observer C Murugan circulated directions via WhatsApp to micro-observers regarding acceptance of birth certificates during electoral roll revision. He alleged that such communication bypasses traceable administrative systems and undermines procedural accountability mandated for election-related instructions. The Election Commission of India has not issued an official response to the claims so far.
According to the complaint, micro-observers—whose responsibilities are limited to assisting verification—were allegedly guided in ways that could influence decisions on voter inclusion or deletion. Banerjee argued this would exceed their legally defined role and potentially compromise neutrality. He further alleged that roll observer login credentials assigned district-wise were accessed from a central location, suggesting possible unauthorized system use. He said technical audits of IP addresses and tower locations could verify whether logins originated from the designated jurisdictions.
The Trinamool leader also claimed that queries generated through the system appeared targeted and may have disproportionately affected a particular community. While no documentary evidence was released publicly, he stated that the matter would be pursued legally if authorities failed to clarify the process. He emphasized that public trust in electoral institutions depends on strict adherence to transparent procedures rather than discretionary practices.
The allegations come amid ongoing revisions of electoral rolls, a routine exercise conducted before elections to update voter data and remove ineligible entries. The Supreme Court has previously stressed that such processes must remain transparent, documented and open to scrutiny to prevent arbitrary deletions or inclusions.
Election law experts note that if substantiated, the accusations could raise questions about administrative compliance with judicial guidelines. However, they caution that verification of technical records and official communication logs would be necessary before drawing conclusions. Commission officials have yet to publicly address the specific claims or confirm whether an internal inquiry will be initiated.
Political observers say the controversy may intensify scrutiny of voter list revisions in the coming weeks, particularly if legal proceedings are filed. Until an official clarification emerges, the dispute remains an allegation, but it has already added a new dimension to the debate over electoral transparency and institutional accountability.
.jpg)
