The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued a strong caution against any attempts to question judicial officers supervising the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, stressing that the integrity and authority of the officers must not be undermined while the large-scale verification exercise is underway. Hearing petitions related to the ongoing revision, a bench led by Chief Justice Suryakant, along with Justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, expressed displeasure over an application that appeared to cast doubt on the functioning of officers tasked with adjudicating claims and objections. The Chief Justice observed that the plea seemed premature and reflected a lack of trust, asserting that judicial officers must not be subjected to such questioning. When senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy clarified that the applicants were not targeting the officers personally, the bench maintained that any suggestion undermining their role was unacceptable.
The court reviewed the progress of the electoral roll revision, noting the unprecedented scale and pace of the process. A report submitted by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court stated that more than 10.6 lakh applications had been disposed of within just two weeks. Over 500 judicial officers are currently engaged in the exercise, supported by personnel from neighbouring states including Odisha and Jharkhand. The bench acknowledged that officers were working continuously, including on holidays and during festivals, to keep the process on schedule.
Addressing concerns over the absence of an appellate mechanism, the Supreme Court directed that retired Chief Justices and retired judges of the Calcutta High Court be appointed as appellate tribunals to hear challenges against decisions made during the revision. If required, retired judges from the high courts of Odisha and Jharkhand may also assist. The bench clarified that executive authorities cannot hear appeals against orders passed by judicial officers and reiterated that earlier directions already barred such executive intervention. The Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has been authorised to establish as many appellate tribunals as necessary to manage the expected volume of appeals.
The report before the court also highlighted technical obstacles faced by some officers. Although 719 login credentials had been issued for personnel deployed in sensitive districts, several officers were unable to access the digital portal due to technical issues attributed to the Election Commission of India. Senior advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing for the Commission, assured the bench that the glitches would be resolved promptly and portal functionality restored.
Submissions made during the hearing underlined the magnitude of the exercise. Guruswamy informed the court that nearly seven lakh claims had already been decided by judicial officers, while tens of lakhs remained under adjudication. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan noted that a substantial share of the processed claims involved rejections and cautioned that directing all appeals to the High Court would create an overwhelming burden on the judiciary.
Senior advocate and Kalyan Banerjee, who is also a Member of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress, raised concerns regarding transparency and the lack of a clear appeal route. He argued that individuals whose claims are rejected should at least be informed of the reasons and pointed out that even members of his own family were missing from the draft electoral rolls. Responding to broader concerns, Justice Bagchi remarked that the court was already exercising extraordinary powers to ensure the process proceeds smoothly and cautioned against adding complications to an exercise involving millions of entries.
With a vast number of applications still pending, the Supreme Court’s directions seek to preserve the credibility of the adjudication process, protect judicial independence, and ensure that the electoral roll revision continues in an orderly and legally sound manner.
