Page 6 - The Indian EYE 021326

EYE ON INDIA FEBRUARY 13, 2026 | The Indian Eye 6

How Mamata Banerjee

Turned Voter Roll Revision

into a Political Flashpoint

OUR BUREAU di, the ECI was “compelled to appoint
micro-observers” because the State
New Delhi / Kolkata
government failed to provide adequate
est Bengal Chief Minister officers despite repeated requests.
Mamata Banerjee’s per- “We have written several letters to
Wsonal appearance before the State government asking them to
the Supreme Court on Wednesday appoint BLOs and other officers,” he
marked a rare moment in India’s fed- told the Court, adding that the State
eral and electoral politics, transform- had provided “only about 80 officers”.
ing a technical dispute over voter roll Banerjee, however, alleged that
revision into a broader political and the use of micro-observers based
constitutional confrontation over dis- in BJP-ruled States and the deploy-
enfranchisement, institutional trust ment of artificial intelligence tools
and Centre–State relations. amounted to centralised control over
Banerjee’s decision to address the voter list. The charge taps into a
the Bench herself — instead of leav- long-standing narrative of federal fric-
ing the matter entirely to counsel — tion between the Trinamool Congress
underlined the political stakes she government and central institutions.
attaches to the Election Commission
of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Re- The Court ultimately issued no-
vision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee addressing a press conference
Bengal. Alleging that the exercise was tice to the ECI and granted it
being used to delete genuine voters on Thursday (ANI) time to examine the new griev-
rather than correct errors, the Chief
Minister accused the poll body of se- across the country. “We will ensure that no innocent cit- ances raised by the petitioners,
lectively targeting opposition-ruled Banerjee also highlighted how izen is left out,” Chief Justice Surya listing the matter for further
States and disproportionately affect- marital name changes were being Kant observed, adding that minor
ing women, migrants and the poor. treated as discrepancies. “A daughter spelling or dialectal differences could hearing on Monday. It also
“This SIR is for deletion, not in- goes to her in-laws’ house after mar- not be grounds for exclusion. At the asked the State to provide a list
clusion,” Banerjee told the Bench led riage and uses her husband’s surname. same time, the Court clarified that
by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, They are removing her. Is that a rea- names of deceased or legally disqual- of Group B officers who could
alleging that lakhs of voters had been son to delete her name?” she asked, ified persons would have to be re- assist in the process, signalling
wrongly flagged under “logical dis- framing the issue as one of structural moved in accordance with law.
crepancies”. According to submissions exclusion rather than clerical error. On the contentious issue of Aad- an attempt to de-escalate the
made on her behalf, around 58 lakh The Chief Minister questioned haar — which Banerjee alleged was administrative deadlock.
names had already been deleted, near- both the timing and the geography of being rejected despite earlier court di-
ly 88 lakh voters flagged, and close to the exercise. Conducted during festi- rections — the Bench said it could not
three lakh objections were still pend- vals and harvest season, she argued, comment, noting that the question of Beyond the legal questions, Ba-
ing — even as the final publication of the revision coincided with a period Aadhaar’s validity as proof of citizen- nerjee’s courtroom intervention has
the rolls was scheduled within days. when many migrant and rural voters ship was pending adjudication. “Aad- political resonance. By stepping into
At the core of Banerjee’s argu- were away from home. “What was the haar has its own limitations. We have the role of petitioner-in-person, she
ment was the claim that the process hurry to do this at such a time?” she reserved judgment on that issue,” the has positioned herself not just as a
ignored India’s linguistic and social asked, adding pointedly, “Why West Chief Justice said. litigant but as the public face of re-
realities. She pointed to common Bengal, why not Assam?” — a line Appearing for the ECI, senior sistance to what she portrays as in-
Bengali surname variations — such as of argument aimed at reinforcing her advocate Rakesh Dwivedi rejected al- stitutional overreach. Whether the
Datta and Dutta, Roy and Ray, Gan- claim of selective scrutiny of non-BJP- legations of arbitrariness, stating that Court ultimately accepts or rejects
guly and Ganguli — being treated ruled States. notices issued during the SIR already her claims, the episode underscores
as mismatches. “These are not spell- The Supreme Court sought to contained reasons for discrepancies. how electoral administration — once
ing mistakes. These are local dialect strike a balancing tone. While de- He also contested Banerjee’s charge largely procedural — has become
differences,” her legal team argued, clining to halt the process, the Bench that the Commission had sidelined a central battleground in India’s in-
stressing that such variations exist assured protection to genuine voters. State machinery. According to Dwive- creasingly polarised politics.

www.TheIndianEYE.com