Supreme Court Cracks West Bengal Wall: SIR Now Ironclad
Mamata Banerjee hoarding in Kolkata (Image AITMC on X)
No stay on Special Intensive Revision, Election Commission empowered, Mamata government faces tough questions on law, order and administration
By NIRENDRA DEV
New Delhi, February 10, 2026 — The Supreme Court’s order on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal marks a decisive assertion of constitutional authority over political convenience. By issuing a show cause notice to the state’s Director General of Police and directing him to file a personal affidavit on allegations of intimidation and violence, the Court has sent an unmistakable signal: the rule of law will not be negotiated.
At the heart of the controversy lies the Supreme Court West Bengal SIR ruling, which unequivocally refused to stay the revision exercise and gave full backing to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The Court rejected attempts to dilute statutory safeguards, holding that Form 7 objections must be considered regardless of the personal presence of the objector—a critical affirmation of citizens’ rights in a charged political climate.
More damaging for the Mamata Banerjee government was the Court taking formal note of the state’s failure to appoint Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) of appropriate seniority. This administrative lapse, the bench acknowledged, directly crippled the SIR process. Only after judicial scrutiny did the state scramble to provide adequate manpower, exposing what critics describe as avoidable governance paralysis.
The Court also clarified the role of micro-observers, stating they can only assist EROs and have no decision-making authority. While Trinamool Congress leaders projected this as a rebuke to the Election Commission, the broader reading suggests something else entirely: final authority rests with statutory officers, not political narratives.
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the order is the empowerment of the ECI to take disciplinary action against errant officials without routing it through the state government. This strips away a key layer of political insulation and places bureaucrats on clear notice that partisan conduct will carry consequences.
Equally serious are the Court’s observations on intimidation and violence faced by citizens who filed objections. By summoning the DGP, the Supreme Court has underlined that maintaining law and order during electoral processes is not optional—it is a constitutional obligation.
Political reactions predictably diverged. The BJP hailed the order as proof that constitutional institutions will not bend, while the CPM argued that both the Trinamool and the BJP were pulled up. Trinamool leaders, meanwhile, framed the verdict as a victory for democracy. But stripped of rhetoric, the message from the Court is stark: electoral integrity cannot be held hostage to administrative laxity or political pressure.
In West Bengal’s bruised electoral battleground, the Supreme Court has drawn a firm line. Whether the state crosses it again may now come at a personal cost to those in command.
(This is an opinion piece. Views expressed are author’s own.)
West Bengal Elections: BJP Faces Bengal’s Cultural Resistance
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
