What did the order actually do?
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court, in an exceptional situation, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and decided to deploy judicial officers in the State of West Bengal (“State”) to adjudicate and revisit cases and documents submitted under the category of “logical discrepancies” and “unmapped cases” for inclusion or exclusion of names from the electoral roll (“roll”). This course of action was adopted when the second phase of the SIR, being undertaken across 12 States/Union Territories, was nearing completion.
The Court intervened after the Election Commission of India (“ECI”) submitted before the court that, despite repeated requests, the State had not provided Group ‘A’ officers of the rank of SDO/SDM to carry out the quasi-judicial functions of Electoral Registration Officers (“EROs”). According to the ECI, instead of such officers, personnel at clerical levels and from Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ cadres were deployed. Consequently, making it untenable to entrust them with the adjudication of cases involving scrutiny of documents in a number of cases falling under the logical discrepancy and unmapped category, where the documents submitted raised doubts to their authenticity. The State, however, disputed this assertion before the Court.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court initially sought the assistance of judicial officers from the State of West Bengal and, by subsequent orders, facilitated the deployment of additional judicial officers from the neighbouring States of Odisha and Jharkhand (subject to the discretion of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court), having regard to the nearly 60 lakh cases requiring adjudication.
At the same time, the Court directed the ECI to proceed with the publication of the final electoral roll as scheduled on February, 28, 2026, while clarifying that cases pending adjudication could be added subsequently through supplementary lists as and when decisions are rendered.
Why was the Court compelled to intervene?
Earlier, on February 4, 2026, when the sitting Chief Minister of West Bengal chose to appear in person before the Supreme Court in the SIR matter, the hearing drew nationwide attention. While the presence of two constitutional authorities before the Court generated considerable public and media interest, the Supreme Court, through its orders, made it clear that it would not permit any impediment to the continuation of the SIR process.
During the second phase of the SIR in West Bengal, the State challenged the decision of the ECI to deploy Micro-Observers to assist the EROs/Assistant EROs, contending that such deployment was contrary to law. The ECI, however, justified the step on the ground that it was compelled to do so due to the non-availability of adequate Group ‘A’ officers of the rank of SDO/SDM despite repeated requests to the State.
Another concern raised by the State related to the notices issued under the ‘logical discrepancies’ category, which it alleged were contrary to the SIR guidelines and issued on an ad-hoc basis. The ECI, however, contended that such verification was necessary and in accordance with the SIR, as in several cases electors had been incorrectly or wrongly linked to the last SIR.
Even after extensions of time for hearings, nearly 60 lakh cases are pending adjudication in West Bengal. This stands in contrast to similarly placed States, which were able to complete the SIR exercise within the prescribed and extended timelines.
For instance, in Tamil Nadu, approximately 1.16 crore notices were issued on account of logical discrepancies, and the exercise was completed within the stipulated timeframe, culminating in the publication of the final electoral roll on February 23, 2026. Likewise, in Kerala, notwithstanding the existence of notices under ‘logical discrepancies’, the revision was carried out as scheduled and the final electoral roll was published on February 21, 2026. While the immediate dispute concerned the conduct of the SIR in West Bengal, the episode exposes a deeper institutional gap in India’s electoral framework.
Has the time come to equip ECI with permanent staff machinery?
At the heart of the issue is a structural feature of India’s electoral system: the ECI does not have a permanent staff of its own for the preparation of electoral rolls or the conduct of elections. Instead, it functions through personnel requisitioned from the Central and State governments under the constitutional scheme. This question was debated in the Constituent Assembly during the consideration of draft Article 289 (present Article 324). While Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in moving the clause, observed that the ECI’s work would be uneven and argued that creating a separate permanent machinery could lead to duplication of machinery and unnecessary expenditure, Mr. R.K. Sidhwa, representing the Central Provinces and Berar, expressed a contrary concern that bears relevance in the current episode.
Mr. Sidhwa argued that reliance on staff drawn from the provinces would render the scheme imperfect, since such personnel would ultimately remain responsible to the executive. If the executive were inclined to play mischief, it could issue informal or even secret instructions to such staff to act according to its behests, which they may well comply with as their permanent duty ultimately lies with the executive. He therefore advocated a Commission with its own machinery, contending that such a body could ensure a permanent and accurate electoral roll.
In today’s context, the updation of electoral rolls has effectively become a year-round exercise owing to the system of continuous updation. Given the importance of a pure electoral roll for free and fair elections, the controversy surrounding the deployment of EROs in West Bengal revives an unresolved institutional question: whether the time has come to equip the ECI with a permanent machinery, at least for the preparation and continuous updation of electoral rolls.
What does publication of the final roll mean?
On February 28, 2026, in line with the schedule and the directions of the Supreme Court, the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal published the final electoral roll, comprising about 7.04 crore electors, reflecting a net reduction of approximately 61 lakh electors (around 8.3%) as compared to the pre-SIR roll.
Of these, around 58 lakh electors were deleted at the draft stage on account of non-submission of Enumeration Forms due to reasons such as death, absence, shifting of residence, or enrolment at multiple places, while a further 5.4 lakh electors were removed after the publication of the draft roll through the statutory Form-7 process.
While this constitutes the final electoral roll at the present stage, nearly 60 lakh cases remain pending adjudication before judicial officers. Upon such adjudication, eligible electors would be included by way of supplementary lists. Further, as names may be added up to the last date of nomination, the present figure of 7.04 crore electors is likely to increase.
Holding the line: the ECI’s institutional stance
Viewed in its proper constitutional context, the present episode reinforces the importance of a pure electoral roll to the conduct of free and fair elections. The Supreme Court’s decision to facilitate the deployment of judicial officers strikes a careful balance between ensuring the timely completion of the SIR, in view of the upcoming elections, and imparting the degree of seriousness that the exercise inherently warrants. Equally, the ECI’s stance justifies the trust reposed in it by the Constitution’s framers under Article 324—to safeguard the integrity of the electoral roll.
(Kumar Utsav is an advocate based in Delhi whose area of practice includes election law. Views expressed are personal)
Published – March 10, 2026 06:00 am IST
