Bengal SIR deadline extended by one week to February 14 : Clarifies Role of Micro-Observers

 Supreme Court Extends West Bengal SIR Timeline and Clarifies Role of Micro-Observers

Live Law, 9 Feb 2026 : The Court directed the West Bengal DGP to file an affidavit responding to ECI's complaints regarding threats and violence.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a slew of directions in relation to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in West Bengal.

The Court directed the State to make available to the Election Commission of India Group B officers for SIR duties, who can replace the micro-observers deployed by the Election Commission of India.

The Court also clarified that final orders on claims and objections can be passed only by the Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), and that the micro-observers can only assist them.

The Court also directed the Director General of Police of the State to file a personal affidavit responding to the concerns raised by the ECI regarding failure to stop threats and violence against SIR officials.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice N. V. Anjaria also directed that the deadline for the scrutiny of documents and objections be extended at least for a week from February 14, the scheduled date for publication of the final list.

To “streamline the process” and with a “view to address the apprehensions raised by different stakeholders”, the Court issued the following directions:

(i) Let the State Government ensure that all the 8,550 Group B officers, whose list was handed over today, report for duty to the District Collector/ERO tomorrow by 5 PM. The ECI shall have the discretion to replace the existing ERO/AEROs and utilise the services of the officers who have now been placed at their service, subject to their suitability.

(ii) From the list of 8,500, the ECI, after scrutinising their bio-data and work experience, may shortlist these officers equivalent to the strength of micro-observers already engaged. These State Government officials may be imparted brief training of a day or so for the purpose of providing assistance to EROs/AEROs along with the micro-observers already assigned.

(iii) The responsibility already assigned to micro-observers shall be only to assist the DEO/EROs. In other words, the final decision will be taken by the EROs only.

(iv) Since the process of scrutinising the documents submitted by the affected persons is likely to take more time, and as suggested by some of the petitioners, we direct that at least one week more time be granted to the DEO/EROs beyond February 14 to complete the scrutiny of the documents and take an appropriate decision.

(v) On behalf of the petitioners, references have been made to some documents to suggest that the micro-observers are the final authority. This aspect has been clarified by the ECI that micro-observers shall only be assisting the prescribed statutory authority for taking the final decision.

(vi) Show-cause issued to the Director General of Police of West Bengal for his personal affidavit on the statements made by the Election Commission of India that there was widespread violence.

The Court noted the submission of the ECI that, despite their complaints, no FIRs were registered. There were also allegations regarding mass-burning of Form 7 objections.

The Court noted that its January 19 order had specifically directed the DGP to ensure that law and order were maintained.

The Court also clarified that the EROs shall be duty-bound to consider objections, if any received, as per the statutory scheme, whether or not such persons come forward for personal hearing. The genuineness of their documents can be verified like that of the documents of affected persons.

The Court further clarified that the ECI shall be at liberty to replace officers who are not performing their duty.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the State of West Bengal, informed that the list of about 8,500 Group B officers, who can function as Assistant Electoral Registration Officers, has been prepared.

Last week, the Court had asked the State to hand over a list of officers who can replace the micro-observers appointed by the ECI.

The ECI’s stand is that they were compelled to appoint micro-observers due to the State’s non-cooperation.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the Election Commission of India, submitted that most of these officials are not experienced in passing quasi-judicial orders.

The State is claiming that they have experience in election duties, but for SIR duty, the officers are required to pass orders on claims and objections, Naidu said, highlighting the need for officers in the revenue department who have experience in passing orders.

Naidu also submitted that these officers need to be trained before being enlisted for SIR duties, and considering that the last date for publication of the final list is February 14, he voiced doubts about the feasibility of employing officers from the State’s list.

However, ultimately, Naidu conceded that these officers can report for duty tomorrow, following which the ECI will see their suitability.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for Mamata Banerjee, submitted that an “extra-legal role” has been given to the micro-observers, who the ECI have appointed from other States and Central PSUs.

Divan pressed for a direction that the ERO should be the final authority for passing the order.

Naidu asserted that this was a non-issue, as the orders are passed by the ERO only.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted that “bundle of objections” are being filed by anonymous persons. He demanded that the objectors’ presence must be ensured at the time of the hearing.

Senior Advocate V. Giri appeared in a PIL filed by Sanatani Sangsad arguing that the State was non-cooperative with the ECI, and that there was violence against the ECI officials.

The ECI has filed an affidavit in this petition stating that it was facing hostility and threats in the State.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta for the Union requested that the Court should take cognisance of the “shocking details” in the ECI’s affidavit and pass appropriate orders.

He said that persons holding high offices were instigating violence against the ECI officials.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for the State, denied the allegations.

Background

Before the Court was a bunch of petitions filed by Trinamool Congress leaders and others challenging the Election Commission’s special intensive revision of the State’s electoral rolls.

Listed along with these cases were the petitions filed by Sanatani Sangsad, poet Joy Goswami and CM Mamata Banerjee.

While Sanatani Sangsad’s petition seeks deployment of State police officials under the ECI until publication of the final electoral roll, CM Mamata Banerjee’s petition challenges the manner in which the SIR process is being conducted, particularly the ECI’s characterisation of voters into a “logical discrepancy” category.

Last week, CM Mamata Banerjee appeared in person before the Supreme Court and argued that West Bengal was being targeted ahead of State Assembly elections.

She particularly raised concerns about characterisation of voters in a “logical discrepancy” category by the ECI over minor name spelling mismatches, most of which were allegedly attributable to translation from Bengali or local dialect to English.

The CM also made submissions against the ECI’s appointment of 8,000 micro-observers, superseding the authority of Booth Level Officers.

On this, CJI Kant said that if the State can provide a list of Group B officers who can be deputed for SIR duties, the micro-observers can be relieved.

While issuing notice, the CJI further assured that if a need arises, the bench will direct that all documents be signed by BLOs.

He also orally told the ECI to instruct its officers to be more “sensitive” while issuing notices to persons citing “logical discrepancy” due to minor mismatches in name spellings.

In related news, the ECI recently filed a counter-affidavit in Sanatani Sangsad’s petition, alleging incidents of violence, intimidation and obstruction of election officials performing SIR duties in West Bengal.

It alleged reluctance on the part of State machinery to address threats against election officials and/or register FIRs on complaint of Booth Level Officers.

The ECI also accused CM Banerjee of making fear-mongering, provocative speeches.

On February 6, an application was filed before the top Court challenging CM Mamata Banerjee’s personal appearance in the West Bengal SIR matter.

Case Title:

(1) MOSTARI BANU Versus THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025

(and connected cases)

(2) JOY GOSWAMI Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 126/2026

(3) MAMATA BANERJEE Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 129/2026

(4) SANATANI SANGSAD AND ANR. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1216/2025