The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Election Commission to make public the names of nearly 1.25 crore voters in West Bengal whose entries have been flagged for “logical discrepancies” during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The court said transparency was essential given the sheer scale of the exercise and its potential impact on voters ahead of the state Assembly elections scheduled later this year.
The directions were issued by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi. The bench noted that close to two crore notices had already been issued to voters across the state seeking verification of their details as part of the revision process.
The court explained that the notices fall under three broad categories: mapped cases, unmapped cases and cases involving logical discrepancies. Logical discrepancies, the bench clarified, include anomalies such as mismatches in the names of parents, implausible age differences between parents and children, and inconsistencies in the recorded ages of grandparents in the electoral database.
Taking note of the magnitude of the exercise, the Supreme Court ordered that the names of voters flagged under the logical discrepancy category be displayed prominently at gram panchayat bhavans, block development offices and ward offices across West Bengal. The court directed that objections be invited within ten days of publication, followed by an additional window for voters to submit supporting documents.
The bench made it clear that due process must be followed at every stage. It ordered that wherever documents submitted by voters are found unsatisfactory, the concerned individuals must be given an opportunity to present additional documents and to be heard, either in person or through an authorised representative, before any final decision is taken.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions alleging arbitrariness, lack of transparency and procedural lapses in the Special Intensive Revision exercise in West Bengal. Petitioners argued that the process, if not carefully regulated, could lead to large-scale exclusion of genuine voters ahead of the elections.
The bench also issued a series of operational directions to ensure fairness and accountability. Local authorities were told to issue receipts for all documents submitted by voters and to provide written reasons for their final decisions on objections. The state government was asked to deploy adequate manpower at hearing venues, while the Director General of Police was directed to ensure that the process does not lead to any law and order issues.
The Supreme Court criticised the Election Commission for relying on informal communication channels to convey instructions. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that official processes cannot be run through platforms like WhatsApp and emphasised that all directions must be issued through proper circulars.
Highlighting the human cost of the exercise, Justice Bagchi observed that more than one crore people had already been served notices and stressed that the court was conscious of the stress and anxiety being caused to ordinary citizens. He said the court would not hesitate to issue further directions wherever necessary to protect voters’ rights.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, questioned the basis on which several voters had been flagged. He pointed out that all the names under scrutiny were already part of the electoral rolls and argued that the Election Commission should publish a detailed list along with clear hearing dates. He also flagged logistical shortcomings, noting that only about 300 hearing venues had been approved despite the need for nearly 1,900 across the state.
Responding on behalf of the Election Commission, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that the anomalies identified were serious and could not be ignored. He cited examples such as cases where the age difference between a parent and child was only 15 years, and instances where hundreds of voters were linked to a single individual, saying such errors warranted closer scrutiny.
Justice Bagchi, however, questioned whether such parameters could automatically justify suspicion. He observed that a 15-year age gap between a mother and son may not be unusual in a country where child marriages have historically existed, and cautioned against applying rigid assumptions without context.
The court was also informed that notices had been issued to well-known individuals, including Nobel laureate Amartya Sen. Senior advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay submitted that even Members of Parliament had received notices and raised concerns about Class 10 certificates not being accepted as valid proof in some cases.
Taking note of these submissions, the bench directed the Election Commission to accept Madhyamik (Class 10) admit cards carrying dates of birth as valid documents during hearings. It also allowed affected voters to seek assistance from a lawyer, family member, neighbour or political party representative, provided proper authorisation is furnished.
The Special Intensive Revision exercise, which began on December 4, 2025, has already resulted in more than 58 lakh voter names being identified for deletion after the publication of draft electoral rolls. The second phase of the exercise, during which voters can verify and correct their details, is scheduled to continue until February 2026.
