SIR West Bengal: SC extends deadline for scrutiny of documents, objections

New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered an extension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. While issuing several directions regarding the exercise, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice NV Anjaria directed that the deadline for scrutiny of documents and objections be extended by at least one week beyond February 14, the scheduled date for publication of the final list.

During the hearing, the Court also directed the State to provide Group B officers to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for SIR duties, who could replace the micro-observers deployed by the ECI. It clarified that only Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are empowered to pass final orders on claims and objections, and that micro-observers may only assist them.

The Court further directed the Director General of Police of West Bengal to file a personal affidavit addressing the ECI’s concerns about failure to prevent threats and violence against SIR officials.

To "streamline the process" and with a "view to address the apprehensions raised by different stakeholders", the Court issued the following directions:

(i) The State Government must ensure that all 8,550 Group B officers listed on February 9 report to the District Collector/ERO by February 10 at 5 pm. The ECI may replace existing EROs/AEROs with suitable officers from this list.

(ii) From the list of 8,500 officers, the ECI may shortlist candidates equivalent to the number of micro-observers, after assessing their qualifications and experience. Selected officers may be given brief training.

(iii) Micro-observers shall only assist the DEO/EROs, and final decisions shall be taken exclusively by the EROs.

(iv) Considering the time required for document scrutiny, at least one additional week beyond February 14 shall be granted for completing the process.

(v) The Court clarified that micro-observers are not final authorities and only assist statutory officials.

(vi) A show-cause notice was issued to the DGP of West Bengal seeking a personal affidavit regarding allegations of widespread violence. The Court noted that no FIRs were registered despite complaints and that there were allegations of mass-burning of Form 7 objections. It recalled its January 19 direction to maintain law and order.

The Court clarified that EROs are required to consider all objections under the statutory framework, even if objectors do not appear personally. The authenticity of documents must be verified in all cases.

It also stated that the ECI may replace officers who fail to perform their duties properly.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing West Bengal, informed the Court that a list of around 8,500 Group B officers capable of functioning as Assistant Electoral Registration Officers had been prepared. The ECI had earlier appointed micro-observers due to alleged lack of cooperation from the State.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, submitted that many officers on the list lacked experience in passing quasi-judicial orders. He stressed the need for revenue officials and adequate training, expressing doubts about the feasibility given the February 14 deadline. He later agreed that officers could report for duty, after which their suitability would be assessed.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, argued that micro-observers had been given an "extra-legal role" and sought confirmation that EROs are the final authorities. Naidu maintained that this was already the case.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted that "bundle of objections" were being filed anonymously and demanded that objectors be present during hearings.

Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing in a PIL by Sanatan Sansgad, alleged State non-cooperation and violence against ECI officials. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Court to consider the "shocking details" in the ECI’s affidavit. He claimed that persons in high offices were instigating violence. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for the State, denied these allegations.

Background
The Court was hearing multiple petitions filed by Trinamool Congress leaders and others challenging the ECI’s SIR exercise. Related petitions by Sanatani Sangsad, poet Joy Goswami, and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee were also listed.

Sanatani Sangsad sought deployment of state police under ECI control, while CM Banerjee challenged the manner of the SIR process, particularly the classification of voters under "logical discrepancy".

Last week, CM Banerjee appeared in person and alleged that West Bengal was being targeted ahead of Assembly elections. She raised concerns over minor spelling mismatches and opposed the appointment of 8,000 micro-observers.

CJI Kant observed that micro-observers could be relieved if suitable Group B officers were provided. He also assured that documents could be signed by BLOs if required and advised ECI officials to be more "sensitive" in cases involving minor discrepancies.

Recently, the ECI filed a counter-affidavit alleging violence, intimidation, and obstruction of officials in West Bengal. It accused the State of failing to address threats and register FIRs, and alleged that CM Banerjee made provocative statements.

On February 6, an application was filed challenging CM Banerjee’s personal appearance in the SIR proceedings.(With Live Law inputs)