The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that it will not tolerate any hurdles in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out in different states. The court said that updating voter lists is a crucial exercise for free and fair elections and must continue without disruption.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing several petitions related to the SIR process in West Bengal. One of the key petitions was filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who has raised objections to how voters were classified in a category described as “logical discrepancies” by the Election Commission.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court also granted additional time to complete the voter list revision in West Bengal. The deadline for the SIR has now been extended by one more week, till February 14, giving authorities extra time to finish the process.
The Chief Justice firmly stated that while the court may issue clarifications or directions if needed, it will not allow any action that delays or blocks the revision exercise. He stressed that this message should be clearly understood by all states involved in the process.
The Election Commission informed the court that nearly 8,500 officers have now been deployed to ensure the SIR is conducted smoothly in West Bengal. The Chief Justice remarked that if such cooperation had been provided earlier, the process might have moved faster without controversy.
The court also questioned the West Bengal government over delays in sharing information. The Chief Justice pointed out that despite clear directions given on February 4, certain details were sent only late at night on February 7. This raised concerns about timing and coordination between the state government and the Election Commission.
Responding to the court’s observations, senior advocate Shyam Diwan, appearing for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, stated that the required data had already been prepared and forwarded to the Election Commission. He argued that the state had complied with instructions and that delays were being misinterpreted.
The Election Commission, however, maintained that the state government did not fully cooperate and defended the deployment of micro-observers, saying it was necessary to maintain transparency and accuracy in voter records.
