Kolkata saw a sharp escalation in the confrontation between the Trinamool Congress and the Election Commission after party general secretary and MP Abhishek Banerjee alleged that the poll authority was unfairly targeting citizens of West Bengal. The charge followed a notice issued to economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen asking him to appear for a hearing linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.Addressing reporters, Abhishek Banerjee said the notice to Sen symbolised a broader pattern of scrutiny aimed at Bengal rather than a neutral administrative exercise. He argued that the Election Commission’s actions had fuelled anxiety among voters and created the impression of selective enforcement, a claim that the commission has consistently denied in past exchanges with political parties.
The Trinamool Congress leader framed the issue as one of democratic fairness, asserting that the SIR process, which involves verification and correction of voter records, should be applied uniformly across states. He questioned why a globally respected academic associated with Santiniketan was being summoned, adding that such steps risked undermining confidence in the impartiality of the electoral machinery.
The notice to Sen relates to clarifications sought during roll revision, an exercise the Election Commission of India maintains is routine and governed by statutory procedures. Officials familiar with the process say notices can be issued to any elector or stakeholder when discrepancies or verification requirements arise, and that the mechanism exists to ensure accuracy ahead of elections.
Trinamool Congress leaders, however, contend that Bengal has been subjected to unusually intense oversight. Party spokespersons have cited frequent directives, observer deployments and notices as evidence of what they describe as an adversarial posture. The party’s leadership has repeatedly taken these grievances to public platforms, arguing that administrative processes are being politicised.
The controversy has added another layer to the strained relationship between the commission and the ruling party in West Bengal. Over the past election cycles, disagreements have surfaced over campaign regulations, scheduling decisions and the conduct of officials. Each episode has sharpened rhetoric on both sides, even as the commission insists it operates independently of political pressure.
For the commission, the defence rests on legal mandate. Electoral roll revision is prescribed under the Representation of the People Act and accompanying rules, and periodic intensive revisions are designed to remove duplication, correct errors and include eligible voters. Senior officials have said publicly that the exercise is critical to protecting the integrity of elections, particularly in densely populated states with high voter mobility.
Abhishek Banerjee countered that the manner of implementation matters as much as the law itself. He said actions perceived as selective erode trust and invite suspicion, especially when they involve public figures known for their academic and moral standing. The MP urged the commission to adopt what he called a more sensitive and transparent approach in its dealings with Bengal.
The involvement of Sen has drawn attention beyond partisan lines. The economist, long associated with Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan, is regarded internationally for his work on welfare economics and social justice. While the notice does not imply wrongdoing, its issuance has been seized upon by political actors to illustrate concerns about administrative overreach.
Political analysts note that the dispute reflects a larger national debate on the balance between regulatory vigilance and perceived intrusion. As elections approach in multiple states, scrutiny of institutions has intensified, with parties seeking to frame narratives around autonomy and accountability. In Bengal, where electoral contests are closely fought, such narratives carry particular weight.