Supreme Court Directive on Voter Documents Fails to Quell Ground-Level Confusion in Bengal
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India issued a clear reiteration regarding the ongoing Summary Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The apex court stated unequivocally that all thirteen documents specified by the Election Commission of India, along with the Madhyamik admit card, "shall be considered by the Electoral Registration Officers when passing orders on the objections received in response to the notices served." This order was intended to standardize the verification process and eliminate discrepancies.
Persistent Confusion Despite Judicial Clarification
However, the scramble and widespread confusion over the correct set of required documents, which has plagued most of the Special Intensive Revision hearings in Bengal since they commenced on December 27, remained starkly evident even on Tuesday. The hearings are scheduled to conclude in just four more days, on February 14. Remarkably, out of the 1.5 crore individuals who received notices, approximately 1.4 crore have already attended these hearings as of Tuesday.
Despite the Supreme Court's pronouncement twenty-four hours prior, hardly any tangible change was observed at the various hearing centers across the state. Electors continued to express frustration, reporting that Assistant Electoral Registration Officers and Electoral Registration Officers were still demanding one or two additional documents, even after they had presented another document explicitly listed by the Election Commission.
Voter Experiences Highlight Systemic Issues
The case of Shyamal Roy, a state government employee, underscores this persistent problem. Roy appeared at the Survey Building for a hearing to resolve a logical discrepancy in his voter details. He was surprised to find that the Supreme Court's order had not translated into any change on the ground. "Earlier, I accompanied my wife for a hearing, and she toiled to find all the necessary documents," Roy recounted. "I was called for a hearing today because my name appeared simply as 'Shyam.' Following the 14-document list on the hearing notice, I first produced my official ID card issued by the state government. But the officials told me that was insufficient and demanded my matriculation certificate," explained the resident of Tollygunge.
Fate of Genuine Voters Remains Uncertain
The future of numerous "genuine voters" now hangs in a precarious balance, according to reports from Booth Level Officers. These are individuals who could not produce any of the thirteen documents specifically listed for the Special Intensive Revision. Instead, they presented other commonly held identity proofs such as Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, existing voter cards, or driving licenses during their hearings to sort out logical discrepancies.
BLOs have stated they are now explicitly forbidden from uploading any document that does not feature on the Election Commission's list of fourteen approved documents for the SIR process. One BLO revealed, "I have some electors who possess no document other than their voter ID, Aadhaar, and PAN cards. They are genuine voters. They attended the hearing with these documents, and the EROs did not provide them with any clear guidance. I was instructed by the ERO not to upload any documents that are not on the EC's official list."
Official Stance and Procedural Adherence
An Assistant Electoral Registration Officer provided the official perspective on the proceedings. "Documents are being meticulously checked to verify the authenticity of voters strictly in accordance with Election Commission norms. We are conducting these hearings in full compliance with the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India," the AERO stated. This highlights the tension between the Supreme Court's broader directive and the specific, rigid procedural checklist being enforced by local election officials.
The situation reveals a significant gap between high-level judicial orders and their implementation at the grassroots level of electoral administration. With the hearings drawing to a close, the resolution for voters caught in this bureaucratic crossfire remains unclear, potentially affecting their eligibility in the upcoming electoral process.
