West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday mounted a direct challenge to the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, telling the Supreme Court that the exercise in her state risked undermining democracy by excluding genuine voters.
“I have only a humble request to you, My Lords—save democracy,” Banerjee pleaded before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, as the court heard a batch of petitions questioning the SIR process.
The hearing, which began shortly after 1 pm, saw sharp exchanges between the state government and the Election Commission, with the chief minister herself seeking and being granted permission to address the bench for a few minutes.
Allegation of selective targeting
Banerjee accused the ECI of singling out West Bengal through extraordinary measures, including the appointment of micro-observers.
“They are only targeting West Bengal. Why are micro-observers appointed only in Bengal?,” she asked, questioning the urgency of the exercise when similar revisions elsewhere typically take years.
The chief minister pointed out that notices were issued during the festive season, which she claimed caused administrative strain. She also alleged that around 100 Booth Level Officers (BLOs) had died during the process. “Why only Bengal? Why not Assam?,” she asked, asserting that the SIR had disrupted the electoral machinery in her state.
The chief minister also claimed that the appointment of micro-observers had resulted in further exclusions beyond the nearly 58 lakh names already removed from the rolls.
ECI’s rebuttal
Appearing for the ECI, senior advocate Rakesh Dhivedi rejected the allegations, stating that the appointment of micro-observers was necessitated by the state government's lack of cooperation.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Mamta Banerjee, strongly disputed this claim, telling the court that the State had provided all assistance sought by the Commission.
The bench refrained from making a factual determination at this stage but emphasised that the primary goal of the exercise should be to ensure that no eligible voter is wrongly excluded.
Concerns over logical discrepancies
A significant portion of the hearing focused on the category of logical discrepancies under which names were flagged for exclusion. Senior advocate Shyam Divan told the court that despite a January 19 order directing public disclosure, lists of voters excluded on this ground had not been uploaded by District Election Officers.
Banerjee’s petition alleged that in districts such as Malda, nearly 20,000 cases were moved into the logical discrepancy category overnight, indicating a nefarious plan to inflate exclusions.
Divan argued that affected voters were not informed of the precise reason for their exclusion and that none of the documents produced, such as Aadhaar cards or land certificates, were being accepted at hearings. The Chief Justice agreed, observing that it was essential for citizens to know why they were being excluded from the electoral roll.
Name discrepancies and Aadhaar
The court also examined problems arising from spelling variations and name mismatches. Divan pointed out that voters were given only 15 days to respond, with seven days already elapsed, making compliance difficult.
CJI Surya Kant remarked that such discrepancies often arose due to variations in pronunciation across languages. “In the coming days, we cannot know how Tagore is going to be spelt,” he observed, adding pointedly, “But Tagore is Tagore, no matter how they spell his name.”
Referring to a related matter concerning Bihar, the Chief Justice noted that Aadhaar itself had limitations and was among the issues on which judgment had been reserved. However, he stressed that basic errors such as misspellings must be rectified by the ECI.
Banerjee highlighted cases where married women were excluded because their husband’s surname or suffix was missing and argued that the SIR appeared designed only for deletions, not inclusion. “Justice is crying behind closed doors," she said.
Court’s reassurance
Responding to Banerjee’s grievance that repeated representations to the ECI had gone unanswered, the Chief Justice reassured her that every problem has a solution and reminded her that the State of West Bengal had already filed a writ petition in its own right, represented by senior counsel.
Acknowledging her presence in court, the CJI said the state government could assist the ECI in resolving genuine issues, reiterating that the court’s concern was to ensure that “no innocent citizen is left out of the electoral roll”.
Mamta Banerjee thanked the bench and said, “Please protect the people's rights. We are grateful.”
The next hearing has now been slated for Monday, February 9, when the Election Commission will have to file its response.
