The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that it would not tolerate any obstruction in the Special Investigation Report (SIR) process relating to West Bengal, as Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant underscored the need for strict compliance with the court’s directions.
During the hearing, the CJI stated that while the court would issue corrective orders wherever improvements were required, it would not permit hurdles of any kind in the SIR exercise. “All states should understand this,” he remarked, stressing that the process must proceed without delay. The Chief Justice also observed that had the list of officers been submitted by February 5, the Election Commission of India (ECI) would have already taken a decision on the matter.
A key point of contention during the hearing was whether the West Bengal government had submitted the required list of officers to the Election Commission. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state, argued that the ECI had never formally asked the government to provide the names of officers.
Countering this claim, senior advocate Shyam Diwan submitted that a list of 8,500 officers had now been furnished and urged the court to accept it. The CJI, however, immediately sought clarity on whether the list contained essential details such as the officers’ names, designations and places of posting. He further questioned how these officers would be contacted and whether they could report to the concerned Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) by the next day. Diwan responded that all necessary arrangements had been made.
Senior advocate D S Naidu, representing the Election Commission, disputed this assertion, stating that the Commission had not received the names. According to Naidu, the documents received on Saturday at around 12:30 pm did not include such details. While Diwan maintained that district-wise information had been provided, Naidu denied receiving any such list.
The CJI cautioned against turning the proceedings into a factual dispute and warned that if discrepancies continued, the court might be compelled to summon the Chief Secretary for an explanation.
Diwan informed the bench that all the proposed officers were Group B officials and that their names were ready. The CJI pointed out that the list could have been submitted on February 4 or 5, to which Diwan replied that the state had taken some time to compile it.
Noting that the complete list was still unavailable, the CJI observed that the officers would, in any case, have to report to the District Election Officers (DEOs). Singhvi contended that an impression was being created that the state was unwilling to cooperate. He explained that micro-observers belonged to a different category and that many of them were drawn from public sector undertakings (PSUs), with no direct connection to West Bengal.
When questioned by the CJI, Singhvi clarified that these individuals were clerks or customer assistants, while the state had suggested officers of a different category altogether.
The bench also raised concerns regarding mapped and unmapped voters and sought clarification on its earlier directions on the voter mapping process. Referring to instructions issued to the Election Commission, Diwan submitted that over 50 per cent of the discrepancies in the Logical Discrepancy (LD) category were due to minor spelling errors.
The CJI questioned whether nearly 70 lakh voters could have fallen into the LD category merely because of spelling mistakes. It was recalled that in an earlier hearing, the Election Commission had cited staff shortages as the reason for seeking micro-observers. Diwan reiterated that 8,500 officers had now been arranged, prompting the CJI to once again ask the Commission whether it had actually received the list.
Leave Your Comment