Election Commission has suspended seven officials in West Bengal for alleged negligence in election duty and misconduct linked to the Special Intensive Revision process, invoking its statutory authority under Section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The constitutional body has also directed the State Chief Secretary to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings against those named, signalling a firm stance on accountability in the management of electoral rolls.In its order, the Commission cited serious misconduct, dereliction of duty and misuse of statutory powers. The suspension takes immediate effect, with the officials barred from performing any election-related functions pending further inquiry. Senior officers in the state administration have been instructed to ensure that the revision of electoral rolls proceeds without disruption and in strict compliance with legal provisions.
Section 13CC empowers the Commission to suspend or recommend disciplinary action against officers entrusted with election-related responsibilities if they are found to have acted in violation of its directions or failed to discharge their duties properly. The provision was introduced to reinforce the independence and authority of the Commission over personnel deployed for electoral work, including those involved in preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
The Special Intensive Revision, commonly known as SIR, is a periodic exercise aimed at updating and purifying electoral rolls by adding eligible voters, deleting ineligible entries and correcting errors. The process requires adherence to timelines, transparency in claims and objections, and strict verification standards. Any deviation can have significant implications for the credibility of the electoral process, particularly in politically sensitive states.
Officials familiar with the development said the Commission’s action followed scrutiny of complaints and internal assessments concerning the conduct of the officers during the revision exercise. Allegations are understood to relate to procedural lapses and actions deemed inconsistent with the Commission’s guidelines. The identities and designations of the suspended officials have been communicated to the state government for follow-up action.
West Bengal has a history of intense electoral competition, and administrative neutrality during roll revision and polling is closely watched by political stakeholders. Opposition parties have often raised concerns over alleged irregularities in voter lists, while the ruling establishment has maintained that procedures are conducted in accordance with the law. The Commission’s intervention is likely to intensify scrutiny of the ongoing revision process.
State government officials indicated that they would comply with the Commission’s directive and initiate departmental proceedings as instructed. Under service rules, such proceedings may include framing of charges, appointment of an inquiry officer and provision for the officials concerned to respond to allegations. The outcome could range from exoneration to penalties, depending on findings.
Legal experts note that the Commission’s powers under the Representation of the People Act are designed to ensure that officers engaged in electoral duties remain answerable to it during the period of such assignment. While the officers continue to be part of the state cadre, they are deemed to be on deputation to the Commission for election-related functions. This arrangement allows the Commission to take swift action if it perceives a threat to the integrity of the process.
The move also comes at a time when the Commission has been emphasising technological integration and tighter verification in electoral roll management across the country. Digital tools, cross-referencing of databases and structured field verification are increasingly part of the SIR framework. Any failure to follow prescribed protocols in this context may attract stricter oversight.
Political reactions have begun to emerge, with some parties welcoming the decision as evidence of the Commission’s vigilance, while others have called for greater transparency in the inquiry process. Analysts suggest that administrative action of this nature can serve both as a corrective measure and as a deterrent to lapses in future exercises.