Calcutta HC directs ECI to explain basis of SIR process in West Bengal, questioning use of 2002 voter-list as base.
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court has asked the Election Commission of India to file an affidavit on its methodology for the state-wide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls in West Bengal.
The Calcutta High Court has stepped into the heart of the ongoing electoral roll revision exercise in West Bengal, directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to explain in writing the process behind the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court’s move came while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging how the SIR is being conducted in the state. The Indian Express+1
What the court has asked
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen asked the ECI to file a short affidavit by 18 November 2025, detailing:
- the legal basis and procedure for the rapid SIR exercise in West Bengal; The Indian Express+1
- why the 2002 electoral roll is being used as the base list for the revision, instead of more recent data; The Indian Express+1
- whether the ECI is complying with previous directives from the Supreme Court of India regarding SIR; and The Indian Express+1
- how the house-to-house enumeration is being conducted, what protections Booth-Level Officers (BLOs) have been given, and how the state government is cooperating. The Economic Times+1
The next hearing has been scheduled for 19 November 2025. The Economic Times+1
The challenge before the court
The PIL, filed by petitioner Pintu Karar and others, raises multiple concerns about the ongoing SIR in West Bengal. According to the petition:
- The revision is being conducted using the 2002 voter list as its base year, which the petitioners say is outdated and unfair. They argue that the latest available roll (2025) should be used instead. The Indian Express+1
- BLOs carrying out enumeration are reportedly facing intimidation and threats, creating a hostile environment for field work. The Week+1
- The time-frame set by the ECI is tight and may compromise fairness and accuracy of the revision. The petitioners ask for the exercise to be carried out under court supervision. The Indian Express+1
In its response during the hearing, the ECI’s counsel argued that the last SIR for West Bengal was undertaken in 2002 and that people whose names were already on that list need not submit fresh documents. The ECI claimed it is following the Supreme Court-mandated guidelines. The Indian Express+1
Why the base-year issue matters
The choice of 2002 as the base roll is a focal point in this dispute. By using an older list, the petitioners argue that many genuine voters — especially those who moved or turned 18 after 2002 — could be unfairly excluded unless they produce additional documentation. The ECI’s reliance on a long-standing roll raises questions of fairness and transparency, especially in a state preparing for elections where the integrity of the voter list is under scrutiny. The Economic Times+1
Additionally, the process of SIR is meant to cleanse and update electoral rolls comprehensively. Prior exercises, including one in another state, raised concerns about exclusions, data accuracy and procedural clarity. In that backdrop, courts are wary of possible disenfranchisement. Reddit+1
Political and administrative context
West Bengal is among the states slated for assembly elections by mid-2026. The SIR process is being conducted across 12 states. The Economic Times+1
The petitioners argue that the situation in West Bengal is different from other states like Bihar, due to local demographic sensitivities, language issues and migration concerns. They say the haste and scale of the process demand heightened judicial oversight. India Today
On the administrative front, the ECI has indicated that enumeration forms are being distributed, field work has begun, and that the process adheres to the guidelines of the Supreme Court. Still, doubts persist about how consistent and inclusive the exercise will be in the state’s complex electoral environment. The Indian Express
Legal significance and implications
From a legal-journalistic standpoint, the High Court’s intervention is significant for several reasons:
- It highlights the principle of transparency and accountability in electoral processes — one of the core insights from The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect (Kovach & Rosenstiel) regarding public interest and independent oversight.
- It underlines the importance of clear and concise structure in journalistic reporting of legal matters — drawing on the guidance of Writing for Journalists (Hicks) — where the reader’s clarity on what is at stake, who is involved, and the sequence of events is paramount.
- It shows how legal rights (such as the right to vote) can be impacted by procedural mechanisms, and how critical reading of such mechanisms is essential, as emphasised in The News: A User’s Manual (de Botton)— especially when there is potential for inadvertent exclusion of eligible citizens.
If the ECI fails to satisfy the court’s queries, there may be orders for stricter supervision, extension of time-frames, or even scaling back of the SIR exercise in West Bengal. Such a direction would impact administrative timetables and possibly political strategies for forthcoming elections.
What lies ahead
The case is now on the calendar for 19 November 2025, when the bench will review the ECI-filed affidavit and decide whether further directions are needed. The outcome may determine whether the SIR process in West Bengal proceeds as planned or under tighter judicial governance.
For voters, the key issue is whether they will get fair opportunity to participate and whether no eligible voter is left out. For the ECI and administrative machinery, the question is one of legitimacy — can the revision be done quickly without compromising inclusiveness?
In the realm of electoral law and practice, this case could serve as a precedent for how courts monitor large-scale revisions, and how electoral bodies balance speed with fairness.
