Supreme Court Orders Extension Of Time For Objections By A Week In Bengal

The Supreme Court of India ordered extension of time for objections in West Bengal SIR by a week from Feb 14, which in the notified date for publication of the final electoral roll for the state. It has pointed out problem with the “software” that is being used in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), while agreeing with the West Bengal’s argument that the name mismatched people cannot be excluded at all from the electoral roll. It also ordered that EROs should consider all or any of the documents listed in the SIR notice plus documents mentioned in the SC order (admit card, Aadhaar, etc) during verification in the claim/objections phase. To West Bengal, the Supreme Court asked to respond to allegations of violence committed against EC officials.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice N V Anjaria hearing the petitions challenging the SIR being carried out by the ECI, ordered that the 8,505 officials from the State government have to report for duty before the district electoral offices by tomorrow 5 p.m. The Election Commission has to utilise their services as EROs/AEROs if found suitable, and the EROs will alone take the decision if a name has to be in the electoral roll or not, not the macro-observers.

The bench has agreed to the submission of the Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appearing on behalf of the state government that “The name mismatch people cannot be excluded at all.”

CJI Justice Kant said, “Yes we are saying… That.” But on being requested “let a direction be issued”, Justice Kant said, “But that will be a pre-emptory direction… to the ECI.”

Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for West Bengal CEO told the bench that there is a “software” identifying discrepancies which are irreconcilable. On this Justice Joymalya Bagchi told EC, “Tools applied to your software are very restrictive. They are excluding natural discrepancies.”

On issue raised against the deployment of micro-observers from other states ruled by BJP, Justice Surya Kant said, “Micro-observers cannot take decisions.”

The Bench has said the ECI can replace AEROs who are not complying with SIR process in West Bengal with the new crop of officers given by the State. The direction was given after the senior advocate Shyam Divan appearing on behalf of the state government submitted that they have send list of over 8,505 Group B officers to help with the SIR process, especially with the name mismatches.

Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for the State of West Bengal, tells the Supreme Court the State has given over 80,000 personnel for SIR work till February 4. He said that ECI never asked us for extra personnel. It was only on February 4, that this court suggested more personnel can be given by the state to EC, adding that micro-observers did not know the ground realities of West Bengal.

The deadline for the hearing on SIR in West Bengal was February 7, but there is very large number of unheard cases. The Chief Electoral Officer Manoj Agrawal had therefore requested on February 8 to the ECI to extend the date for at least one week. In many places hearing continued on February 8 without extension of date. Final voter list was to be published on February 14.

Earlier Mr. Naidu was telling the court that West Bengal and its CM Mamata Banerjee were making a mountain out of a molehill. The appearing on behalf of the state counsel Divan has said that 70 lakh people have received notices under the logical discrepancies category. He said that SIR process will end on Feb 14. Therefore, there was a tremendous urgency for the reliefs which were sought. Please note that the draft electoral list has 7.08 crore voters. Out of this 6.75 crores are mapped by which it means that they were mentioned in 2002 list or identifiable with that list. 32 lakhs were unmapped, and 1.36 crores were put in the logical discrepancy list.

Mamata Banerjee had personally appeared on February 4, to argue a petition she had filed, in the case to defend the people of her state from being “bulldozed” through SIR by Election Commission of India (ECI), that had attracted special attention of the country. In her petition, CM Mamata, had sought the quashing of all SIR-related orders issued by the ECI on June 24, 2025, and October 27, 2025, along with all connected directives. She stated in her petition filed on January 28 that the ongoing process will result in “large-scale disenfranchisement” caused by “the opaque, hasty, unconstitutional and illegal actions of the ECI.” She had prayed that upcoming Legislative Assembly Election be held in the basis of 2025 electoral rolls. She had also raised the issue of “logical discrepancy list, saying that notices were served over minor spelling mistakes, and appointment of micro-observers from BJP-ruled states deliberately to delete voters.

CJI led Bench had then asked the Election Commission of India to submit a reply and also asked CM Banerjee to submit a list of officers of the state available for SIR work because ECI had submitted that the state was not cooperating and not even given the required number of officers. Ahead of the hearing West Bengal government has informed the ECI that it is ready to make 8,505 Group B Officers of the state available for the process.

In its reply EC has submitted in the Supreme Court that SIR is West Bengal is marred by threats, violence and intimidation to the election officials, and three is sustained political interference and obstruction against the election work. Against the Mamata’s prayer to conduct election on the basis of 2025 electoral roll, ECI has submitted that the sanctity of 2025 electoral roll was questionable.

To prevent her personal appearance in future, a petition was also filed in the Supreme Court by Akhil Bhart Hindu Mahasabha stating, “That the present Intervention Application is filed exclusively to assist this Hon’ble Court on an issue of grave constitutional and institutional importance, namely, the impermissibility, impropriety, and adverse constitutional consequences of permitting the personal appearance of a sitting Chief Minister in proceedings invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.”

The applicant said, “The issues raised directly implicate the institutional functioning of the State of West Bengal and its constitutional relationship with the Election Commission of India. In such circumstances, the Petitioner, being the incumbent Chief Minister, cannot claim to appear in a personal capacity, and any representation before this Hon’ble Court must necessarily be through duly appointed advocates representing the State of West Bengal. The State, as a constitutional entity, is already adequately represented through its appointed counsel, and no occasion arises for the personal appearance of the Petitioner in proceedings of such nature.”

Appearing on behalf of West Bengal, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, said that CM Mamata Banerjee appeared in SC as a citizen. (IPA Service)