SC Orders District Judges to Decide Voter Claims in West Bengal Electoral Roll Stalemate

Invoking the apex courts' powers under Article 142 (special power to do complete justice) of the Constitution, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi observed that it had not option left but to request the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to intervene on the issue by deputing district judges to resolve pending voter claims chiefly with respect to the ones' who have been included in the logical discrepancy list by the ECI.

It noted that the SIR process in the State had stalled at the stage of deciding claims and objections under the "logical discrepancy/unmapped category".

"To ensure fairness in the adjudication of the genuineness of the documents relied upon and the consequential determination for inclusion or exclusion from the voter list... we are left with hardly any other option but to request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta to spare some serving judicial officers, along with some former judicial officers of impeccable integrity in the rank of District Judges/Additional District Judges, who can then, in each district, be requested to revisit and dispose of the pending claims under the category of 'logical discrepancy/unmapped category'", the Court noted.

Each such judicial officer will be assisted by micro-observers from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and officers deputed by the State, it added. The court further made it clear that any direction issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court in this regard would be deemed to be a direction of the Supreme Court, binding on the State administration.

The court said the SIR process had stalled because of a breakdown in coordination between the State government and the Election Commission, particularly at the stage of deciding claims and objections of voters placed in the "logical discrepancy/unmapped category."

It noted that while most affected persons had submitted documents seeking inclusion in the rolls, their cases were yet to be adjudicated through the required quasi-judicial process by properly ranked officers.

"There seems to be an unfortunate blame game that has since permeated this issue, with allegations and counter-allegations clearly depicting a case of trust deficit between two Constitutional functionaries, namely, a democratically elected State Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI). The stage where the process is now stuck relates to the adjudication of claims and objections of the persons who have been included in the 'logical discrepancy/unmapped category'... These claims are required to be adjudicated... through a quasi-judicial process by the EROs. In terms of the rules, practice and convention, the State Government is obligated to provide Group A officers to perform the duties of the EROs, who are in the substantive rank of SDOs/SDMs," it noted.

Additionally, it noted that there is disagreement between the two parties on whether the officers deputed by the State were of the appropriate rank and status to discharge the functions of EROs and AEROs. However, it acknowledged that it is nearly impossible for it to determine the prescribed rank and status of the officers or officials now deployed with the ECI by the State Government.

During the court hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the West Bengal government, argued that the Election Commission had introduced "special roll observers" and micro-observers whose role, according to him, was effectively undermining the statutory authority of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). He contended that even after EROs had cleared files, these observers were overriding their decisions, resulting in a large number of voters being kept in limbo.

"Now they have got special roll officers. Now, after ERO has cleared the file... this new species of observers override the electoral roll officers... and now the decision of a statutorily empowered officer is overridden... 7 lakh people have been parked by this new species of officers", the lawyer said.

Responding to the State's objections, senior advocate D.S. Naidu for the Election Commission maintained that the observers were not a new creation and had always been part of the revision framework. He denied that they were overriding statutory authorities and sought to counter the narrative of large-scale exclusion by pointing to comparative data.

"These officers are there from the very beginning. We have never said these officers trump the ERO", he submitted. Naidu added that the rate of rejection (of voters) is very low in West Bengal. WB is 7.6 per cent. Other states have 17 per cent," he said.

Naidu also contended that the Commission had clearly sought appropriately ranked officers. "We told them we need officers of this nature... We are looking at a qualified ERO," he said. Naidu also alleged that there was complete obstruction and non-cooperation bythe State government in the exercise.

After hearing arguments, the Court acknowledged the requirement of entrusting the issue to District judges. Thus, it asked the Chief Justice of the HC to request judicial officers of impeccable integrity in each district,to dispose of the pending claims.

Terming the situation "extraordinary", it also acknowledged appointment of judges to perform these duties was also of an extraordinary nature. Thus, the High Court was requested to evolve interim arrangements for shifting urgent matters for about a week to ten days so that the SIR process can be completed in a time-bound manner.

The court further directed that every Collector and Superintendent of Police shall provide full logistical support and would be treated as being on "deemed deputation" to ensure compliance with directions issued during the process.

Clarifying the timeline, the bench said any roll published by February 28 would not be treated as final but as part of an ongoing process, with a supplementary list to follow. The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 10, 2026.

- ANI