The ruling All India Trinamool Congress has sharply criticized the Election Commission of India (ECI), claiming that the Commission has “practically lost control” over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal
Election Commission Lost Control Over SIR Process
a process aimed at correcting voter list discrepancies — after the Supreme Court of India mandated that judicial officers oversee the hearings instead of officials appointed by the ECI.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), the party welcomed the Supreme Court’s direction and said the apex court’s decision has effectively shifted authority from the Election Commission to the judiciary, undercutting the ECI’s ability to manage SIR proceedings on its own terms. According to the statement, this change vindicates long-standing concerns that the process was being handled in a manner that lacked transparency and fairness.
Party leaders have argued that the SIR process, which involves identifying and resolving “logical discrepancies” in voter lists, had become chaotic and controversial, with huge numbers of names flagged for verification. They maintain that by ordering judicial oversight, the Supreme Court has restored confidence in the review process and highlighted administrative weaknesses in the ECI’s approach.
Supporters of the Trinamool point to previous allegations that conditional discrepancies in voter lists were used politically to intimidate or disenfranchise certain groups of voters. They welcomed the Supreme Court’s intervention as a corrective measure that prevents potential misuse of the process ahead of upcoming elections.
SIR Process
The Election Commission, meanwhile, has defended its actions as part of its mandate to make the electoral roll more accurate and accessible to voters, asserting that SIR hearings and revisions remain crucial for clean elections. Critics, however, contend that poor planning and execution have led to confusion among voters and an overwhelming backlog of cases requiring adjudication.
As the SIR process continues under judicial supervision, political debates and public scrutiny remain intense, with key stakeholders calling for greater transparency and accountability in electoral management.
