In the ongoing dispute over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, the Supreme Court today has sought the intervention of the Calcutta High Court to ensure fairness in the scrutiny process.
Recording that there is a serious dispute between the West Bengal Government and Eletion Commission of India (ECI) regarding the “substantive scope, actual rank and status” of officers deployed by the State Government as District Registration Officers (DROs) and Assistant Registration Officers (AROs), the Court observed that it would be nearly impossible at this stage to determine the precise administrative standing of the officials currently engaged in the electoral process. The Bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant,Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi noted:
“It is nearly impossible for this Court to determine the status and rank of the officials now deployed by the State Government in the election process.”
Emphasising the need for credibility and neutrality in adjudicating claims relating to inclusion or exclusion from the voter list, the Court said:
“In order to ensure fairness in the adjudication of the genuineness of the documents relied upon and consequential determination for inclusion or exclusion in the voter list… we are left with hardly any other option.”
Accordingly, the Court requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to spare serving judicial officers, along with former judicial officers of impeccable integrity in the rank of Additional District Judges. These officers would, district-wise, revisit and dispose of pending claims, particularly those categorised under “logical discrepancy.”
The court further expressed concern over the manner in which the ongoing SIR of electoral rolls is being conducted in West Bengal, particularly regarding the role of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and the alleged creation of a parallel review mechanism.
Referring to its earlier order dated February 9, the Bench noted that it had issued specific directions to streamline the scrutiny of documents submitted by affected persons and had permitted replacement of officers where required. When apprised of the State’s response, the Court remarked:
“We are disappointed to see that this kind of… We were expecting the States will comply.”
The petitioners alleged that after the Court’s February 9 order, a new category of officials termed “Special Role Observers” had been introduced, who were allegedly reviewing and overriding decisions already taken by EROs. It was argued that once an ERO passes a reasoned order, that statutory determination cannot be “trumped” by another layer of administrative scrutiny.
The State, however, denied any improper override, submitting that the officers in question were assisting in the process and that Group A officers had been provided in compliance with the Court’s directions. The State further argued that variations in administrative structures across States must be considered, explaining the limited availability of certain ranks such as Sub-Divisional Officers in West Bengal.
The Bench cautioned against administrative confusion during the sensitive electoral roll revision exercise, observing:
“Everything depends at this stage on adjudication about the documents and the validity. And that is required to be done by the EROs.”
The Court sought clarity on compliance with its earlier directions and indicated that it would closely examine whether the statutory primacy of EROs was being diluted. The matter remains under consideration.
Appearances
Senior advs Dr Menaka Guruswamy and Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan and Dama Seshadri Naidu. SG Tushar Mehta