Mamata Banerjee Writes Second Letter to CEC, Alleges Voter Disenfranchisement
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sent her second letter to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar within forty-eight hours on Monday. She made serious allegations against the Election Commission. Banerjee claimed the commission fails to provide proper acknowledgements or receipts for documents submitted during Special Intensive Revision hearings.
Documents Marked 'Not Found' to Exclude Voters
The Chief Minister stated that election officials mark these documents as "not found" later. This action potentially disenfranchises genuine voters. Banerjee explained the background. After the 2002 Special Intensive Revision, voters applied for changes in their names and addresses.
The Election Commission ratified these changes. They included the corrections in the 2025 poll rolls. Now the commission disregards its own statutory processes followed consistently for over two decades. It compels electors to establish their identity and eligibility once again.
Banerjee called this approach arbitrary, illogical, and contrary to the Constitution's letter and spirit. This Monday letter marked her sixth communication to the CEC since the Special Intensive Revision rollout in Bengal on November 4.
No Receipts Issued for Submitted Documents
The Chief Minister detailed the problem. During hearings, electors submit requisite documents to support their eligibility. In several cases, election officials issue no proper acknowledgement or receipt. Subsequently, at the verification or hearing stage, these documents get reported as 'not found' or 'not available on record'.
Officials use this basis to delete electors' names from the rolls. Banerjee argued that non-issuance of documentary acknowledgement deprives electors of proof of submission. It places them at the mercy of internal record-keeping deficiencies.
This practice defeats the very objective of the Special Intensive Revision. The revision intends to strengthen and purify electoral rolls, not exclude genuine and eligible voters.
Process Reverts to 2002, Ignoring Two Decades of Revisions
Banerjee highlighted historical context. Over the last twenty-three years, a large number of electors submitted Form 8 along with valid government-issued documents. After due quasi-judicial hearings by Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers, their particulars were duly corrected.
These corrections were incorporated in current rolls. The Chief Minister posed critical questions. Why should the process revert to 2002? Does this imply all revisions carried out during the intervening years were illegal?
AI Translation Errors Cause Data Mismatches
Banerjee also alleged over-reliance on English language-based artificial intelligence tools. She explained the technical issue. In the absence of any digitised database of the last Special Intensive Revision, officials scanned manual voter lists from 2002.
These lists included those published in vernacular scripts. They used AI tools to translate them into English. During this process, serious errors occurred in elector particulars. Errors affected names, ages, sex, relationships, and guardian's names.
These errors resulted in large-scale data mismatches. Many genuine voters got categorised as 'logical discrepancies' due to these technical problems.
Minor Variations Treated as Major Discrepancies
The Chief Minister pointed out another concern. A large number of discrepancy cases involve minor variations. Examples include differences in self or father's name like 'Kr' and 'Kumar' or 'Shaik' and 'Sk'. Age differences also create issues.
Banerjee argued these should get resolved through a table-top exercise by Booth Level Officers, Electoral Registration Officers, or Assistant Electoral Registration Officers. There is no need to call electors for hearings for such minor issues.
Even cases forwarded to District Election Officers by Electoral Registration Officers after due satisfaction of documents uploaded by Booth Level Officers are being repopulated at the Electoral Registration Officer level. This leaves no option except issuance of hearing notices.
EC Flouting Its Own Norms
Banerjee mentioned that the Election Commission flouts its own norms contained in its letter dated October 27, 2025. Paragraph 2(e) stated that Electoral Registration Officers should issue notices only after publication of draft Electoral Rolls. Notices should go to those electors who could not be linked with previous Special Intensive Revision Electoral Rolls to ascertain their eligibility.
All these voters receiving hearing notices are already mapped with the 2002 electoral roll, either by themselves or through progeny, Banerjee claimed.
Special Intensive Revision Reduced to Mechanical Process
The Chief Minister argued that the Special Intensive Revision gets reduced to a mechanical process driven by technicalities. It lacks reasoned application of mind. Such administrative lapses are unfairly forced upon citizens. They result in denial of constitutional rights, Banerjee concluded in her strongly worded letter.
