Sanatan Prabhat > Post Type > News > National News > No obstruction should be allowed in the SIR process

No obstruction should be allowed in the SIR process

  • Supreme Court issues a stern warning to the Bengal government !

  • State government accused of creating multiple hurdles for the Election Commission in implementing the process!

(SIR: Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls)

New Delhi – The Supreme Court has issued a strong warning to all governments, particularly the West Bengal government, stating that no obstacles should be allowed in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Court cautioned that any interference with this constitutional process would not be tolerated. During the hearing, the Court extended the final deadline for completing the SIR process in West Bengal by 1 week, shifting it from February 14th.

Chief Justice Suryakant made these observations while hearing multiple petitions related to the SIR exercise in West Bengal. These included a petition filed by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, which challenged the method of placing voters in a so-called “logical discrepancy” list. Mamata Banerjee was personally present in court during the hearing.

1. The Election Commission informed the Court that it had asked the West Bengal government to provide ‘Group B’ category officers required for conducting the revision process.

2. The Commission stated that it had sent 5 letters to the state government for this purpose, but received no response. As sufficiently experienced officers were not made available by the state, the Commission appointed micro-observers to safeguard the integrity of the process.

3. The Election Commission clarified that appointing such observers falls well within its constitutional powers; however, the state government objected to this move.

4. The Court directed the state to provide an adequate number of election officials to carry out the revision exercise, so that they can perform the roles otherwise being handled by the micro-observers appointed by the Election Commission.

5. The Court made it clear that micro-observers can only assist in the process; the authority to take final decisions on claims and objections rests solely with the Electoral Registration Officers.

6. The Supreme Court has also sought a personal affidavit from the state’s Director General of Police, addressing the Election Commission’s concerns regarding incidents of violence and threats faced by officials involved in the revision process.

Latest Articles