The Supreme Court has formally sought a response from the Election Commission of India on a petition demanding protection for booth-level officers deployed in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, raising serious alarm over reports of intimidation and obstruction in West Bengal and other states.
A bench comprising Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi expressed stern concern that if threats to BLOs are not addressed, the situation “will cause anarchy”. They asked the poll body to furnish details of instances where officials faced hindrances, reminding the Commission that it bears responsibility for ensuring smooth, interference-free execution of the on-ground voter-roll verification.
The hearing was prompted by a plea from a group alleging that BLOs and field teams in West Bengal have been subjected to threats, harassment and even violence while carrying out door-to-door verification and uploading of enumeration forms. Senior advocate V. Giri, representing the petitioners, argued that multiple officials have reported intimidatory tactics aimed at disrupting the SIR process, calling for deployment of state police under EC deputation or, if required, central armed forces until the final publication of electoral rolls.
The Election Commission, through senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi, acknowledged some instances of “gherao” and disruption at district election offices — describing them as serious — and told the Court that it had written to concerned state governments requesting police protection for BLOs. Dwivedi added that if states failed to act, the Commission might have to place local police under deputation or even invoke central forces.
Justice Bagchi, however, cautioned against issuing blanket directions based on limited evidence. Pointing out that the petition records only one registered FIR and otherwise relies on media reports or historical incidents, he questioned whether a singular case could justify nationwide intervention or special treatment for a single state. The bench said it will weigh the evidence before deciding whether to extend extraordinary measures.
Beyond security concerns, the Court revisited the issue of workload. It recalled earlier directions issued during SIR Phase 2 that instructed states to deploy additional staff to relieve overburdened BLOs. The judges underscored that the task involves going from house to house, verifying details, collecting forms and uploading data — not a desk job — and that physical stress and logistical difficulty must be acknowledged when assigning workloads.
During the hearing, the Commission criticised what it described as “political narratives” painting the SIR exercise as chaotic or discriminatory. Dwivedi argued that the SIR framework — with reduced voter counts per booth and a 37-day window — allows time for BLOs to complete field work without undue strain. The bench countered this simplification, contending that the mechanistic calculation ignores the realities of travel, repeated enumeration, verification and data upload, especially in rural or remote areas.
Supreme Court seeks clarity on Assam roll exemption 