Supreme Court message to States: Won’t allow impediment to SIR

The bench, which included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria, was hearing a batch of petitions, including one filed by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, related to the ongoing SIR of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

Following the Election Commission’s charge of “reluctance among local police authorities to register FIRs in response to grievances articulated by Booth Level Officers (BLOs)”, the court also sought a personal affidavit from the West Bengal Director General of Police.

“The documents submitted by the affected persons in response to notices served on them are likely to take more time… We direct that at least one week more time, beyond February 14, 2026, be granted to the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs)/ Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs), for completing the scrutiny of the documents and taking an appropriate decision,” the court said.

It said that those who had received notices would be entitled to rely on “all or any of the documents referred to by the ECI in the SIR notice” and that “all those documents shall be considered by the EROs while taking a final decision.”

At the last hearing, Banerjee had objected to the ECI appointing micro-observers in West Bengal, saying this was an attempt “to bulldoze the Bengali people”. The ECI, however, had contended that they were appointed as the State failed to provide the required number of officials.

On Monday, the State provided a list of 8,505 Group B officers who, it said, could assist with the SIR exercise, including sorting “logistical discrepancies” arising out of name mismatch due to local dialect etc.

Taking note, the SC made it clear that the micro-observers would remain and they, along with the officials found eligible from the list of 8,505 provided by the State, would assist the EROs and AEROs.

“Let the state government make sure that all the 8,505 officers whose list has been handed over in court today, report for duty to the District Electoral Officers/ EROs tomorrow by 5 pm. The ECI shall have the discretion to replace the existing EROs/ AEROs and utilise the services of the officers who have now been placed on deputation with the ECI, if satisfied with regard to their qualification, subject to their suitability for the quasi-judicial or semi quasi judicial responsibilities,” it said.

“The rest of the officers/ officials from the list of 8,505, the ECI, after briefly scrutinising bio-data or work experience, may short-list them, equivalent to the strength of the micro-observers already engaged. These state government officers/ officials shall be imparted training for the purpose of providing assistance to the EROs/ AEROs along with micro-observers who have already been engaged,” it said.

“It is made clear that the responsibilities assigned/ sought to be assigned to the micro-observers or to the state government officers/ officials shall be only to assist the EROs/ AEROs in the decision-making process. In other words, as rightly pointed out by the senior counsel for the ECI, the final decision will be taken by the EROs only,” the bench said.

“On behalf of the petitioners, a reference has been made to some documents to suggest as if the micro-observers are the final authority. This aspect has been clarified on behalf of the ECI that the micro-observers as well as the state government officers/ officials who will be taken on board for assisting the EROs/AEROs from tomorrow onwards shall be for assisting the prescribed statutory authority for the purpose of taking the final decision,” it said.

The court also took strong note of complaints by the ECI in two affidavits, filed in response to a petition by an organisation called Sanatani Sangsad, highlighting alleged instances of violence in West Bengal during the SIR exercise.

In an additional affidavit, the EC accused the state government and the Trinamool Congress leadership of making “deliberate and systematic attempts…to derail, paralyse and frustrate the SIR exercise” in the state. It said that while the exercise is underway in other States too, “a controversy of the present nature where the ruling party in the State is actively involved in causing obstruction and issuing threats to officials is confined only to the State of West Bengal”.

“The actions demonstrate complicity of all key actors of the State, including the state government, certain elected representatives of the ruling party, and party functionaries. Every trick in the armoury is being employed to ensure that the SIR process is either stopped or frustrated by fair or foul means,” the EC said. It also alleged that micro-observers were threatened, hearing centres attacked, government offices vandalised and statutory forms burnt.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the court to issue necessary directions. “A message must go that the Constitution of India applies to all states,” he said.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the West Bengal government, denied the allegations.

Taking note, the court said: “We are reminded of our order dated January 19, 2026, in which a categorical direction was issued to the DGP, Superintendent of Police and District Collectors… to ensure the maintenance of law and order…. We therefore show cause the DGP to file his personal affidavit and a response to the allegations made by the ECI… We will take a final call in respect of the powers of the ECI in this regard. But before doing so, we deem it appropriate to provide opportunity to the DGP to explain…”

With the ECI complaining that the State “ignored” its recommendations to remove erring officials, the SC directed that the poll panel “shall be at liberty to replace the officers who have been prima facie found to have erred in discharging their duties.”

The next hearing is scheduled for February 20.