Supreme Court orders ECI to publish 1.25 crore voter names with 'logical discrepancy' flagged in West Bengal SIR

Representative image

• Supreme Court orders EC to publish names of 1.25 crore voters with discrepancies
• Voters with flagged discrepancies must respond within 10 days.
• Court criticizes use of WhatsApp for official orders, demands formal circulars

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Monday stepped into the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal, directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to place in the public domain the names of around 1.25 crore voters against whom so-called “logical discrepancy” objections have been recorded.

The Bench noted that the verification exercise has already resulted in notices being issued to nearly two crore people across the State.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi, observed that the objections raised by the poll body fall into three broad groups -- mapped, unmapped, and logical discrepancies.

The last category, the Court noted, includes issues such as mismatches in a parent’s name, inconsistencies in age, or anomalies in the age gap between parents, children and even grandparents.

Given the sheer scale of the exercise, the Court ordered that the list of voters flagged under the “logical discrepancy” category be displayed at the grassroots level -- in gram panchayat bhavans, block or taluka offices, and ward offices -- so that affected persons are aware of the objections.

The Bench made it clear that voters must be given a real opportunity to respond. Objections to the discrepancies, it said, should be accepted within 10 days, with additional time allowed for submitting documents. Where papers are found wanting, the voter must still be given a chance to explain.

“Wherever the document is not found satisfactory.. such persons shall be given an opportunity present documents and also be heard at that very time in person or through authorizsd representative present with the voter,” the Court directed.

Stress caused by the process was also acknowledged. "Over 1 crore people have been notified. Please understand the stress people are suffering. We will issue directions where needed,” Justice Bagchi remarked.

The State government was asked to back the process with adequate manpower and law-and-order arrangements. The Court also mandated that officials receiving documents must issue receipts and provide written reasons for accepting or rejecting objections at the end of the process.

Lawyers clash over criteria, WhatsApp orders draw ire

During the hearing, senior advocates appearing for the petitioners sharply questioned both the criteria adopted and the manner in which directions were being issued.

Kapil Sibal pointed out that only about 300 venues had been approved for hearings, even though nearly 1,900 were required given the numbers involved.

Referring to the nature of objections, he said discrepancies were being flagged for minor variations, including spelling differences in surnames.

“Please see what is the logical discrepancy... If there is X number of years difference between grandfather and child then there is discrepancy. All these names are there in the voter list. Let them publish a list with all these discrepancies etc and give a hearing date,” Sibal told the Court.

He also sought permission for Booth Level Agents to assist voters facing scrutiny.

Another flashpoint was the use of informal communication. Senior counsel Shyam Divan drew attention to messages circulated on WhatsApp instructing officials to keep Booth Level Agents away from hearings. This prompted a sharp response from the Bench. “There is no question of running everything through Whatsapp. Circular has to be issued,” the CJI said, a sentiment he reiterated later in the proceedings.

Appearing for the Election Commission, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi defended the exercise, citing cases where age gaps between parents and children were implausibly narrow. That submission was met with skepticism. “How can 15 years age gap between mother and son be logical discrepancy... ? We are not in a country where child marriages are not a reality,” Justice Bagchi observed.

The Court was also told that notices had gone out to prominent individuals, including Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, with disputes over which documents could be accepted as proof of age. As the arguments grew heated, one exchange summed up the mood. When Dwivedi commented, “Enough for tomorrow’s paper,” the response from the petitioners’ side was immediate: “Yes, Yes it is clear that you are doubting everybody.”