This Content Is Only For Subscribers
In 2025, the Election Commission of India (ECI) conducted the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar. It made news. Those on the Left said it was the ‘biggest disenfranchisement exercise’. Now, with some members of the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC) approaching the Supreme Court of India against the SIR in West Bengal, The Dossier thought it would be a good idea to do a series specifically on the SIR. In this three-part series, we will dive into the history and constitutionality of this exercise. Then, explore the arguments made against the Bihar SIR, what the SC said on them, and finally examine the objections made to the West Bengal SIR, and whether those objections make any sense, to see whether the opposition to this exercise holds water or their bucket is broken. This is part three of the three-part series.
Mamata won’t win the SIR case, said a friend of mine. The development so far shows that Mamata’s challenge to West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is moving through a courtroom that has so far appeared reluctant to entertain her arguments. So, it appears, he might be right.
The ECI announced the second phase of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in November 2025. West Bengal was among the states selected for the exercise. Before the SIR could reach its conclusion, Banerjee was ready with a petition at the Supreme Court (SC).
The following month, the SC granted her a hearing. Banerjee’s argument was predictable: that genuine voters, especially women and people with spelling mismatches in names, were facing the risk of deletion from the electoral rolls. The ECI maintained its stance. According to the constitutional body, the purpose of the SIR was to remove ineligible or duplicate voters. Moreover, it said that cooperation from the then Banerjee-led government had been insufficient.
Step forward Justice Surya Kant, the Chief Justice of India, who observed the controversy in a line. On 24 March, Justice Kant referred to an article that he had read, which stated similar large-scale electoral roll exercises in other States governed by ‘A, B or C political parties’ had happened ‘smoothly’.
The bench led by Justice Kant refused to entertain oral claims without written material on record and said: ‘There is nothing before us in writing.’ It reminded petitioners that they were not without remedy and could approach the appellate tribunals created for this purpose. Despite this, the matter returned once again to the SC in challenges relating to the deletion of names from the electoral rolls. As a result, the Court declined to entertain the petitions.
The Court was equally dismissive of repeated requests for extensions and objections to the training being given to judicial officers handling deletion-related cases – training which, the SC noted, was merely an ‘orientation exercise’.
The results speak louder than the objections. The 2026 West Bengal SIR eventually led to the removal of around 91 lakh names (60 lakh deceased, 27 lakh under review). Interestingly, the scrutiny of these cases is now being handled by the same judicial officers whose training Mamata had opposed.
With these developments in view, I believe the eventual judgment, whenever it is delivered, is unlikely to favour Mamata.
Editor’s note: Part one of this series can be read here and part two here.
