The Supreme Court’s order on January 19, 2026, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was a much-needed rebuke to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for its mishandling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. In a strongly worded intervention, the apex court highlighted the “strain and stress” inflicted on ordinary voters, noting that over one crore notices had been issued—creating widespread confusion, anxiety, and hardship in the run-up to the 2026 assembly elections. This scathing observation exposed how an exercise meant to purify voter lists had instead devolved into a source of public distress, with arbitrary criteria and opaque processes undermining democratic trust.
The SIR, intended to verify and correct electoral rolls ahead of the polls, targeted millions in West Bengal alone. Around 1.25 crore to 1.36 crore voters—nearly 20% of the state’s electorate—received notices under categories like “logical discrepancies,” which included mismatches in names, age gaps with parents or grandparents, family mapping anomalies (such as implausibly large numbers of progeny linked to one parent), or even surname spelling variations. These notices reversed the burden of proof onto citizens, forcing them to produce documents and explanations without clear statutory backing or prior public guidelines. Reports of unrealistic targets for Booth Level Officers (BLOs), informal instructions via WhatsApp, and even work-related stress leading to tragic outcomes further compounded the chaos. The ECI’s defense—that anomalies were “scientifically impossible” and needed correction—failed to justify the scale and manner of the exercise, which appeared more punitive than procedural.
This approach not only sowed confusion but risked disenfranchising eligible voters, particularly from vulnerable sections, by turning routine verification into a bureaucratic ordeal. The Supreme Court rightly questioned the invention of such criteria, emphasizing that electoral clean-ups must not come at the expense of fairness, due process, or voter convenience. The bench observed that while corrections are permissible, they cannot be opaque or people-hostile, and directed the ECI to ensure transparency at every step.
In response, the court issued a series of binding directions: publish the full list of those flagged under “logical discrepancies” on the ECI website and at gram panchayat bhavans, block offices, and ward levels; set up accessible offices within these local bodies for submitting documents and objections; allow affected individuals to seek assistance from authorized representatives (including family, lawyers, or political party booth-level agents); accept valid documents like Class 10 admit cards where appropriate; and conduct verifications without undue inconvenience or stress. These measures aim to restore public confidence by making the process inclusive and accountable, while preventing arbitrary exclusions.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s verdict is highly appreciable for its timely, principled stand. By prioritizing voter rights over administrative expediency and holding the ECI to account, the bench has reaffirmed that democracy’s integrity depends on trust in institutions—not on processes that burden citizens. The ECI must now implement these directives with sincerity, ensuring future revisions are conducted with empathy, clarity, and rigor. Only then can electoral exercises strengthen, rather than strain, the democratic fabric.
