New Delhi [India], February 9 : The Supreme Court on Monday extended by one week the deadline for publication of the final electoral roll under the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal, while also issuing a show-cause notice to the Director General of Police (DGP), West Bengal, over allegations of violence during the revision process.
The final electoral roll, which was earlier scheduled to be published on February 14, will now be released after the extended timeline.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the extension was necessary as Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs) required additional time to scrutinise documents and take appropriate decisions.
The Court also took serious note of allegations of violence during the SIR process and issued a show-cause notice to the Director General of Police (DGP), West Bengal, directing him to explain the steps taken to maintain law and order in the State.
"To streamline the ongoing SIR exercise and address apprehensions raised by various stakeholders, we deem it appropriate to issue some additional directions (noting that omit had on the earlier hearing as well issued certain directions)", it noted.
The Court directed the West Bengal government to submit, by 5 pm on Tuesday, a list of 8,505 officers proposed to be deputed by the State. It granted discretion to the ECI to replace EROs and AEROs and to utilise the services of these officers, if required.
"From these officers, the ECI may, after a brief scrutiny of their biodata, shortlist personnel equivalent to the strength of the micro-observers already engaged and provide them brief training to assist the EROs, AEROs and micro-observers," the Court noted.
The Court clarified that these officers would only assist in the process and that "the final decision shall rest solely with the EROs.
Noting allegations raised in the ECI's counter-affidavit that, despite complaints, no action was taken against persons allegedly burning Form-7 (objection forms) and other materials, the Court issued a show-cause notice to the DGP. The Court said it would take a final call on the extent of the ECI's powers in this regard after receiving the response from the police chief.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, submitted that out of 7.08 crore voters in the draft list, 6.75 crore were mapped, while 32 lakh remained unmapped. He further stated that even among the mapped voters, about 1.36 crore names were placed in the Logical Discrepancy list due to "minor spelling and dialectal variations such as Dutta-Datta and Roy-Ray."
Divan also informed the Court that the State had deputed over 8,500 Group-B officers and assured that "they can report to the EROs immediately."
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal government, argued that while the State had offered assistance, the ECI instead engaged "micro-observers from outside Bengal" who were unfamiliar with the State's language and administrative setup. He contended that the ECI "never sought deputation of Group-B officers" earlier and that trained State officials were unjustifiably sidelined.
Divan also argued that the manner in which micro-observers were functioning could potentially result in the large-scale deletion of voters' names. Responding to this, the Chief Justice observed that micro-observers were meant only to assist EROs and AEROs and not to take independent decisions.
After hearing all parties, the Supreme Court issued the above directions.
The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of pleas filed by various petitioners, including Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, alleging irregularities in the SIR exercise carried out by the ECI in West Bengal. Banerjee has alleged that voters' names were placed on the Logical Discrepancy list due to minor dialectal spelling differences and that objection notices were issued without reasons.
Earlier, Banerjee had appeared in person before the Court and submitted that the State was being selectively targeted by the ECI to delete voters rather than to include them or correct errors. After hearing her submissions, the Court had sought a response from the ECI.