The Supreme Court of India on Friday verbally rejected objections raised by the Trinamool Congress to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide training to judicial officers deployed to verify claims under the Special Intensive Review (SIR) process in West Bengal, and asked the petitioners not to “doubt the judicial officials” or stop the process with “simple excuses”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi refused to accept the oral reference made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared with senior advocates Kalyan Bandhopadhyay and Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the TMC leaders.
“A strange thing has happened,” Sibal said, alleging that the Election Commission of India had framed directions and procedures for judicial officers “behind your back” following earlier court orders. He said that the training unit determines which documents should be accepted, and claimed that it had instructed staff not to accept residency certificates.
But the court expressed its reluctance to reopen this case. She added: “Now, do not doubt our judicial officers, because in the end they are the ones who will decide.”
When Sibal claimed that, as per the court order, the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court had to decide the modalities, the bench clarified that “modalities” referred to logistical arrangements, not substantive judicial guidelines.
“Do not disrupt the process with trivial excuses; we cannot hear like this. There must be an end to this. We have issued an order beyond your imagination,” the court commented, asserting that the judicial officials were fully aware of the Supreme Court’s directives.
He further stressed that the Supreme Court has already clearly defined the documents that can be considered. “Our directives are as clear as daylight and cannot be overridden,” the bench said, adding that the ICRC’s training module cannot replace the court’s orders. She asked: “Who other than the Etihad Export Credit Company will provide the training?”
When Sibal asked that judicial officials be required to take the decision independently and not influenced by the instructions of the Election Commission of India, the bench insisted that no further clarification was needed. “Our orders are clear,” the court said categorically. She also noted the scale of the operation, noting that for the SIR’s work, “the entire judiciary was evacuated.”
On February 24, citing its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed the Independent Electoral Commission to continue publishing the supplementary voter lists even after the final electoral list is notified on February 28, to ensure that no eligible voter is denied the right to vote before the next House of Representatives elections.
The authority considered that voters included in the supplementary lists would be dealt with as part of the final list published on February 28. The move effectively neutralized strict legal timelines that might prevent the inclusion of voters whose verification is pending.
The court also allowed the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to seek additional judicial manpower not only from within West Bengal but also from neighboring states like Jharkhand and Odisha to complete the adjudication of cases on “war footing”. More than 250 serving and retired district judges are currently involved in adjudicating nearly five million claims and objections.
The extraordinary measures came after the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court informed the apex court that nearly eight million cases under categories such as “logical inconsistencies” and “unassigned category” required adjudication — a scale that made completion before February 28 almost impossible under normal timelines.
The SIR process, which was announced last November in 12 districts including West Bengal, saw nearly 13.6 million voters classified under the ‘logical inconsistency’ category. The draft list released in December omitted 5.89 million names, intensifying the political standoff between the TMC-led state government and the Independent Electoral Commission.
Earlier, on February 20, the Supreme Court described the situation as “extraordinary” and ordered the deployment of serving and retired district judges to adjudicate disputed voter claims, citing a “lack of trust” among constitutional authorities.
On February 25, the authority issued another important clarification regarding the documents that can be relied upon during verification. Responding to senior advocate Dhamma Seshadri Naidu’s reference to the IEC, the court clarified that the Madhyamik Admit Card (Class 10) will not serve as an independent document for drawing a lineage map with the 2002 electoral rolls. It has to be submitted along with the Madhyamik Pass Certificate.
The court had earlier allowed consideration of 11 documents listed in the ECCI notification dated October 27, read with the Supreme Court’s previous orders allowing Aadhaar as proof of identity and allowing Class 10 certificates and admit cards. The clarification was intended to prevent any impression that an access card could “replace” a pass certificate rather than “supplement” it, while ensuring that judicial officers have a clear framework for deciding cases.
Friday’s exchange reflects the ongoing friction between the TMC and the Election Commission of India over the conduct of the SIR, even as the Supreme Court seeks to strictly supervise the process.
While the petitioners repeatedly expressed concerns about illegal deletions and procedural irregularities, the bench emphasized the fairness, “purity and sanctity of the electoral roll.”
