In a rare intervention into the electoral administrative process, the Supreme Court of India on Friday ordered that serving and former judicial officers be appointed to supervise the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi stepped in after finding a serious institutional breakdown between the West Bengal Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the verification of voter lists.

The litigation arose from multiple petitions concerning the ongoing voter list revision exercise in the State. The conflict centered on who should perform the role of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) — officials empowered to decide claims and objections regarding inclusion or deletion of names in electoral rolls.

The ECI alleged that the State failed to provide adequate SDM-rank Group B officers capable of passing quasi-judicial orders.

The State, however, argued that the Commission was unlawfully relying on micro-observers and special roll observers to scrutinise voter documents.

The Court noted continuous allegations, counter-allegations, and lack of cooperation.

“There is an unfortunate blame game… indicating a trust deficit between two Constitutional bodies.”

To preserve fairness in voter verification, the Bench directed the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to nominate:

Serving judicial officers
Former judicial officers (District Judge / Additional District Judge rank)

These officers will now adjudicate disputes over “logical discrepancy” cases in electoral rolls.

“We are left with hardly any other option but to request judicial officers to adjudicate the genuineness of documents.”

Each judicial officer will be assisted by:

ECI micro-observers
State government officials

The Court acknowledged that diverting judges may affect pending court cases but held the situation to be extraordinary.

The Court also ordered:

• Publication of the voter list on the scheduled date (February 28) where process is complete

• Supplementary lists may be published later

• Collector and SP to provide logistics and security

• DGP to file affidavit on threats against SIR officers

During the hearing, the Bench expressed disappointment at the lack of cooperation.

“We were expecting cooperation by the State.”

Both sides eventually agreed to judicial oversight.

This order is significant for three reasons:

Judicial Neutrality in Elections
Courts rarely enter administrative election processes. Here, the Court acted to protect electoral credibility — a core democratic function.
Constitutional Balance of Power
The ruling addresses conflict between two constitutional authorities — the elected State Government and the independent Election Commission.
Precedent for Future Electoral Disputes
The decision signals that when institutional trust collapses, courts may temporarily assume supervisory roles to safeguard voter rights.

In essence, the Court did not merely settle a dispute — it intervened to preserve the legitimacy of the democratic process itself.