Supreme Court has directed the deployment of judicial officers to oversee claims and objections arising from the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal, marking an unusual intervention in the management of voter lists. The Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipin Pancholi, cited a clear lack of cooperation between the State government and the Election Commission of India as it ordered on-site judicial supervision.The order follows weeks of acrimony between the State administration and the poll panel over the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision, a process undertaken periodically to verify, correct and update electoral rolls. Petitioners had approached the apex court alleging irregularities in the handling of objections and counter-claims, delays in hearings, and administrative hurdles that, they argued, could affect the integrity of the rolls ahead of forthcoming electoral exercises.
Reading out the directions in open court, the Bench observed that free and fair elections are part of the Constitution’s basic structure and that the preparation of accurate electoral rolls forms the foundation of that mandate. It noted submissions indicating that field-level coordination between district authorities and election officials had deteriorated, resulting in confusion over the disposal of applications. The court said judicial officers would be tasked with monitoring compliance with statutory timelines and ensuring that claims and objections are adjudicated in accordance with law.
Special Intensive Revision, conducted under the supervision of the Election Commission of India, involves door-to-door verification in certain areas, publication of draft rolls, and a defined window for electors to file claims for inclusion or objections to entries. While the Commission defended the exercise as routine and necessary to weed out duplications and deceased voters, counsel representing sections of petitioners contended that procedural safeguards were not uniformly followed in parts of the State.
West Bengal’s government, represented before the court, denied any deliberate non-cooperation and maintained that district administrations were extending logistical support to electoral registration officers. It argued that law and order remained under control and that isolated instances of friction had been overstated. The Election Commission, for its part, said it had repeatedly sought cooperation at the local level and had issued instructions to ensure transparency in hearings on objections.
Legal observers described the court’s move as rare but not without precedent, noting that higher courts have, in exceptional situations, appointed judicial officers or commissioners to oversee processes that bear on constitutional rights. The Bench appeared persuaded that direct monitoring would restore confidence among stakeholders and prevent further escalation. It clarified that the judicial officers’ role would be supervisory rather than substitutive, and that statutory authorities would continue to exercise their functions.
West Bengal has witnessed heated political contestation over electoral rolls in the past, with rival parties alleging wrongful deletions or inclusions. Accurate rolls are critical in a State with more than 90 million residents and a complex demographic profile. Any perception of bias or administrative breakdown carries implications not only for State polls but also for parliamentary contests.
Election law specialists point out that the Representation of the People Act and related rules prescribe detailed procedures for revisions, including notice to affected individuals and opportunities to be heard. Courts have consistently held that while the Election Commission enjoys plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, those powers are subject to judicial review where allegations of arbitrariness or violation of natural justice arise. The present order appears to tread that line by reinforcing procedural compliance without supplanting the Commission’s authority.
Political reactions were swift. Leaders of opposition parties in the State welcomed the direction, arguing that independent oversight would reassure voters. Representatives of the ruling dispensation cautioned against what they termed judicial overreach, contending that election management is primarily within the Commission’s domain and that the State machinery had acted in good faith.
The Bench emphasised that its concern was limited to ensuring that citizens’ rights were not compromised during the revision. It directed that periodic status reports be filed, detailing the number of claims and objections received, disposed of, and pending, along with reasons for any delays. The court also asked that adequate public notice be given to affected electors and that hearings be conducted in a transparent manner.