The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal has emerged as one of the most contentious electoral law and governance debates in recent times. The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, has taken an extraordinary step of deploying judicial officers from neighbouring states of Odisha and Jharkhand to assist in the verification of claims and objections in West Bengal. This unprecedented judicial intervention in an Election Commission (ECI) exercise raises fundamental questions about electoral integrity, federalism, the constitutionality of the SIR process, and the independence of the Election Commission. The matter touches the heart of India’s democratic processes, universal adult franchise, and the role of the judiciary in electoral matters.
Table of Contents
Five Important Key Points
- The Supreme Court expanded the judicial team deployed for West Bengal’s SIR process, authorising deployment of civil judges with at least three years of experience from Odisha and Jharkhand.
- Nearly 50 lakh claims and objections were pending before Electoral Registration Officers, with 294 district judges insufficient to handle the load within the election timeline.
- The Supreme Court permitted the ECI to publish a voter list on February 28, 2026, while allowing supplementary lists to be published continuously till nominations are filed.
- Under Article 142, the Supreme Court declared that voters in supplementary lists would be deemed part of the final electoral roll published on February 28.
- Aadhaar, Class 10 admit cards, and pass certificates were declared valid proof documents for SIR verification, despite concerns about Aadhaar forgery in border areas.
Background: What Is the Special Intensive Revision?
The Special Intensive Revision is a process undertaken by the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to update and correct electoral rolls. It involves identifying voters based on logical discrepancies, address mismatches, and mapping errors. The ECI notified the SIR for West Bengal on October 27, 2025, and the process has since been enveloped in political controversy between the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress government and the ECI.
💡 Get AI-powered exam prep on your phone!
The ECI’s decision to conduct SIR just before the West Bengal Assembly elections brought it under intense scrutiny. Large-scale deletions from electoral rolls were reported across multiple states. Tamil Nadu saw nearly 11.5% of voters removed, Gujarat 13.4%, and Chhattisgarh 11.8%. These numbers are strikingly high for a routine exercise, particularly given that female electors were deleted in higher proportions than male electors, raising concerns about structural bias in the SIR methodology.
Constitutional and Legal Dimensions
The SIR draws its legal basis from the Representation of the People Act, 1950, particularly Section 21 to Section 28, which empower the Election Commission to prepare, revise, and maintain electoral rolls. The Election Commission, constituted under Article 324 of the Constitution, has superintendence, direction, and control over the preparation of electoral rolls for all elections to Parliament and State Legislatures.
However, the Supreme Court has played an active role in questioning whether the SIR process itself is constitutionally valid. Critics argue that conducting a mass revision without a fresh Census, which has been delayed by the BJP-led Union government since the 2011 Census, is inherently flawed because comparisons with accurate population data are impossible. This raises the question of whether the ECI acted prematurely and whether the exercise violated the right to vote, which is a statutory right closely linked to Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s use of Article 142, which grants the Court power to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter, reflects the gravity with which the apex court is treating the issue. By declaring supplementary list voters as part of the final electoral roll, the Court is essentially filling a legal vacuum created by the ECI’s logistical failures.
The inclusion of Aadhaar as a verification document under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, has also been challenged. Petitioners argued that Aadhaar was being forged on an industrial scale in border areas of West Bengal, potentially enabling illegal immigrants to enrol as voters. The Supreme Court declined to remove Aadhaar from the list of valid documents but directed concerns to be raised with the Union government for statutory amendments.
Governance Concerns and the Trust Deficit
A central theme in the Supreme Court’s intervention is the persistent trust deficit between the Mamata Banerjee government and the ECI. The Court itself acknowledged this trust deficit as a justification for judicial deployment in a process that is ordinarily administrative. This is constitutionally unprecedented in the history of Indian elections.
The involvement of judicial officers transforms the nature of the SIR from an executive administrative exercise into a quasi-judicial process. While this may improve credibility, it also sets a potentially dangerous precedent where the judiciary is routinely pressed into service to validate or oversee administrative failures. The question of institutional capacity and administrative accountability deserves deeper reflection.
The Calcutta High Court Chief Justice’s letter to the Supreme Court, detailing that even if each of the 294 judges handled 250 cases per day, the entire process would take 80 days, is a damning indictment of the planning and execution of the SIR. It reveals a fundamental mismatch between the scale of the exercise and the resources deployed, leading to inevitable infringement of voter rights.
Impact on Universal Adult Franchise
Universal adult franchise is guaranteed through Articles 326 of the Constitution, which provides that elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. Any process that leads to wrongful deletion of eligible voters directly undermines this constitutional guarantee.
The disproportionate deletion of female voters is particularly alarming. Married women who shift residences, migrant workers, and those living away from their registered addresses are structurally vulnerable to deletion under the SIR methodology. This is not merely a logistical problem but a systemic failure that requires a household-by-household approach rather than a technology-driven mapping exercise.
The Supreme Court’s observation that it is seeking to ease the hurt rather than aid the process of universal adult franchise is a candid admission that the ongoing judicial intervention is remedial rather than preventive. The constitutional goal of ensuring every eligible adult has the right to vote is being compromised by the manner in which the SIR was designed and implemented.
Editorial Analysis: Was the SIR Premature?
From a policy analysis standpoint, the decision to conduct SIR without an updated Census is questionable. The 2011 Census data, now 15 years old, cannot accurately reflect India’s demographic realities. Projected adult population estimates based on such old data inevitably produce large discrepancies when compared against actual electoral roll numbers, making it impossible to determine whether high deletion rates reflect genuine errors or administrative over-exclusion.
The Supreme Court’s editorial observations in this case, as reflected in its orders, strongly suggest that it believes the process was flawed from conception. However, having allowed the process to proceed, the Court is now managing consequences rather than preventing them. This is a lesson for constitutional democracies about the importance of timely judicial intervention in electoral processes.
Way Forward
Several structural reforms are necessary to prevent a recurrence. First, the Election Commission must wait for updated Census data before undertaking mass revisions of electoral rolls. Second, the SIR methodology must incorporate a robust household-by-household verification mechanism rather than technology-driven mapping that is prone to errors. Third, legal safeguards must be strengthened to protect migrant voters and married women from wrongful deletion. Fourth, the ECI must develop adequate institutional infrastructure for large-scale revision exercises instead of depending on the judiciary. Finally, Parliament must debate and legislate clearer standards for SIR processes to prevent discretionary and potentially partisan use of electoral roll revisions.
Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations
This topic is directly relevant for UPSC Prelims under Polity and Governance, UPSC Mains GS-II for questions on Election Commission, electoral reforms, federalism, and Supreme Court jurisdiction, and the Essay paper for themes on democracy and institutions. For SSC examinations, questions on Article 324, Article 326, Representation of the People Act, and the role of the Election Commission are commonly asked. Aspirants must understand the interplay between the ECI’s constitutional mandate, the right to vote, and the Supreme Court’s plenary powers under Article 142.