West Bengal SIR: Supreme Court allows further deployment of judicial officers from Jharkhand, Odisha for claim verification

Supreme Court ordered that the Calcutta High Court can deploy civil judges with at least three years of experience to expedite the SIR of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Calcutta High Court to deploy civil judges and also make requisition of judicial officers from neighbouring Jharkhand and Odisha to deal with 50 lakh claims and objections in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi also permitted the Election Commission to publish the final electoral roll on February 28, and clarified that the poll panel can issue supplementary lists as the verification process proceeds.

The bench felt that concerns of both sides, the West Bengal government and the Election Commission of India in respect of the ongoing SIR exercise are equally important and the court needs to ensure the purity and sanctity of the electoral roll.

It ordered that the Calcutta High Court can deploy civil judges with at least three years of experience to expedite the SIR of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

The court's order came as the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court had apprised the Supreme Court that, even with 294 serving and retired district and additional district judges deployed to scrutinize voter documents flagged under the “logical discrepancy” and “unmapped” categories, the exercise would require nearly 80 days to cover 50 lakh cases.

Having noted the scale of the task, the court permitted the engagement of judicial officers with at least three years’ experience to accelerate the process.

During the hearing, the bench said, going by the calculation of the Chief Justice of the High Court, even if one officer decides 215 objections in a day, it will take 80 days.

"All civil judges also. Serving judicial officers with three years’ service. We are permitting to utilise their services. That is one way out. We are also permitting to take on board retired or serving judicial officers of neighbouring states, Odisha and Jharkhand. We are also requesting the chief justices of both these high courts,” the bench said.

Raising the issue of language, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, for one of the petitioners, said if the judges were to come from different states, they would not understand Bengali.

"Let's go by history – part of Jharkhand and part of Odisha, were part of Bengal, at one point," the bench said, adding people still understand the local dialect and have at least some familiarity with it.

On behalf of the Election Commission, senior advocate D S Naidu said they are publishing the "final" list on February 28. He pointed out that there is no time frame for the supplementary list and the exercise can continue until the last date of nomination.

The bench said the EC can publish its list, the exercise can continue, and a supplementary list will be published with a deeming clause stating it was published on February 28. The bench said that democratic rights must be preserved.

The court allowed the Aadhaar card and Madhyamik admit card as the identity document for the SIR exercise. “We state that all such documents, whether electronically updated or physically handed over before February 14, 2026, shall be considered,” the bench clarified.

The court invoked its powers under Article 142 and declare that voters enlisted in such supplementary lists would be deemed to be part of final list published on February 28, 2026.

Hearing pleas challenging the SIR exercise in West Bengal, the court had on February 20, dismayed over the ongoing tussle between the West Bengal government and the EC, issued an "extraordinary" direction to deploy serving and former district judges to assist the poll panel in the controversy-ridden SIR exercise in the state.

The logical discrepancies in progeny linking with the 2002 voter list included instances of a mismatch in the parent's name and the age difference between a voter and his/her parent being less than 15 years or more than 50 years.