The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls proceeded smoothly in most States across India except West Bengal.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing submissions on logistical concerns raised during the ongoing revision exercise in West Bengal

“I read an article on SIR. Apart from West Bengal, everywhere it happened smoothly,” CJI Kant remarked during the hearing.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the State, shot back saying that certain developments in West Bengal were unusual.

According to him, in no other State had the Election Commission of India (ECI) published a “logical discrepancy list” or issued administrative notifications at unusual hours during the process.

"No where else logical discrepancy list was published or notification put out at 3 am transferring chief secretary etc," said Banerjee.

CJI Kant responded that issues had arisen in other States as well and noted that in some places the number of voters had actually increased following the revision exercise.

"Yes there are problems in other states also if not more. In some states the numbers have gone up after SIR," he noted.

Banerjee argued that the increase in number was because of the population growth over the last 20 years. He said,

"That is because of the population which has increased after 2002. 20 percent increase is nothing."

Justice Bagchi also highlighted the pressure on judicial officers tasked with adjudicating claims.

“Do you realise we have put so much pressure on the judicial officers to complete 16 lakh cases within 45 days?” he observed.

Banerjee responded that the pace of the exercise was “inhuman”, reiterating submissions that such an exercise could realistically take two to three years.

Justice Bagchi acknowledged that the exercise had thrown up “unique challenges” in West Bengal but stressed that the Court remained mindful of protecting voters’ rights.

“Bengal has thrown up unique challenges and let us not dwell too much on the uniqueness of the issue. We will ensure that the democratically protected right to vote can be exercised,” he said.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan also raised concerns about the impact of pending voter claims on the electoral schedule.

He submitted that around fourteen candidates nominated by political parties were currently on the adjudication list, which could affect their ability to file nominations before the deadline.

Divan pointed out that electoral rolls must be frozen seven days before polling, which is scheduled for April 23 and April 29 in West Bengal.

Responding to the submissions, the CJI said most of the concerns raised appeared to be administrative in nature and should be taken up before the Calcutta High Court.

“Most of these are administrative issues which can be taken up by the Chief Justice of the High Court,” he said.

He also added that political parties could also approach the adjudicating officers handling the claims.

The Court’s observations came in the backdrop of its March 10 order concerning the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State.

In that order, the Supreme Court had directed that judicial officers be deployed to adjudicate claims and objections relating to voter inclusion during the revision process.

It had also said that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court Sujoy Paul, may constitute a special appellate bench of sitting or former judges to hear appeals against decisions taken by the officers conducting the exercise.

The Court had further noted that a large number of claims and objections were pending. It had emphasised that the exercise was aimed at ensuring the accuracy of the electoral rolls ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections.

[Read Live Coverage]