New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken a stern view of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal following the reported confinement of judicial officers in Malda. With the state Assembly elections scheduled for April 23 and 29, a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi has issued a series of directives.Registering a suo motu case titled ‘In Re: Safety and Security of Judicial Officers Deputed for Work Relating to SIR of Electoral Rolls in the State of West Bengal and Ancillary Issues’, the court has addressed issues ranging from the physical security of election officials to the fundamental voting rights of citizens excluded from the rolls.Here are 10 key observations and directives issued by the Supreme Court during the hearings:1. On the confinement of judicial officersAfter seven judicial officers, including three women, were reportedly held hostage without food or water for more than nine hours in Malda district on April 1, Chief Justice Kant observed, “This was not a routine incident. It was ex facie a calculated, well-planned and deliberate move to demoralise the judicial officers and impact the ongoing process of adjudication of objections. We will not allow anyone to interfere and take law into their hands by causing fear in the minds of judicial officers. This undoubtedly amounts to criminal contempt.”The court noted that the officers were pelted with stones as they were finally rescued by police well past midnight. Questioning the absence of local leaders, the Chief Justice asked why they could not have gone to the spot to calm the situation. Justice Bagchi added that leaders of the executive and the Opposition must condemn the incident in one voice, noting, “The orders of the judicial officers are deemed to be the orders of this court. This incident sought to scuttle the entire effort… discourage judicial officers… It amounts to contempt of court.”Representing the ECI, Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu exclaimed that the incident was “jungle raj,” while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta termed it “unacceptable and an affront to the majesty of rule of law,” submitting that the State could not be entrusted with the officers’ security.2. On the political climate of West BengalExpressing dismay over the hostility faced by officers deployed on the court’s orders, Chief Justice Kant addressed the state’s counsel regarding the deep partisan divides. “Unfortunately in your state, each one of you speaks a political language… I have never seen such a politically polarised state. Even in court orders, the politics is reflected,” he said, adding, “Do you think we are not aware who are the miscreants behind this incident? I was monitoring events till 2 a.m.”There was also a heated exchange during the hearing. When Naidu said, “Everybody wants to be a saint now,” and alleged the protests occurred because the High Court “did not yield to illegal demands,” Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, representing Trinamool Congress leaders, retorted, “We are not like you, Naidu. Not like you.”Also read: How Political Betrayal Played a Role in the Siege of Judicial Officers in BengalBandhopadhyay argued that the Chief Secretary of West Bengal and Director General of Police (DGP) were the ECI’s own appointments made in March, and accused the poll body of making provocative statements.3. On the deployment of central forces and investigationsNoting an alleged “conspicuous inertia” and “abdication of duty” by the civil and police administration, the court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to requisition central forces for the safety of judicial officers and to deploy personnel at the residences of any officer who apprehended a threat to their family.Furthermore, the Bench ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to conduct a preliminary probe into the confinement incident.The Bench recorded that despite the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court contacting the Home Secretary and DGP, “no tangible action was taken” until the High Court Chief Justice personally intervened, prompting the officials to visit his residence at midnight. Terming the conduct of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, DGP, District Collector and Superintendent of Police as “highly deplorable,” the court issued show-cause notices to the DGP, the Malda District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, directing them to appear on April 6.To maintain order, the court directed that not more than two or three persons be allowed to enter premises to file objections, and a maximum of five persons be permitted to assemble during adjudication hearings.4. The revision exercise in Bengal versus other statesHighlighting the unprecedented volume of litigation and disputes in West Bengal, Chief Justice Kant remarked on March 24, “Whether the state is governed by A, B or C political party… Other than West Bengal, the SIR in every other state has happened smoothly. By and large, there is hardly any litigation.”In response, Bandhopadhyay submitted that West Bengal was the only state where the ECI had introduced the ‘logical discrepancy’ criterion to purge electors, leaving lakhs on the brink of losing their voting rights.5. On the absolute protection of voting rightsResponding to arguments that exclusion from the electoral roll would permanently disenfranchise citizens, Justice Bagchi stated that the adjudication process must reach its logical conclusion, warning that failing to do so would lead to an “extremely oppressive” situation. “We are not going to dwell on the uniqueness of the issue, but address the ground reality that in a state the fundamental and constitutional rights to participate in an election is to be protected. That is the bottomline for us,” Justice Bagchi noted.Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the state government, submitted that of the approximately 40 lakh claims disposed of, there was a “very high exclusion rate” of 45%, adding, “And these are all mapped individuals.”Pointing out that 14 candidates from a political party were marked as ‘under adjudication’, Divan highlighted that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 requires the electoral roll to be frozen seven days before the last date of filing nominations. He suggested pushing this freezing date closer to the polling days (April 16 and 22) to allow maximum adjudications.Addressing this, Naidu submitted for the ECI, “If somebody has a right [to vote] we cannot thwart, if somebody does not have a right to vote, we can stop the person. It is as simple as that.”6. On bulk submissions of registration formsWhen Bandhopadhyay submitted that, in one instance, a single person had submitted 30,000 Form 6 applications (for inclusion in the electoral roll), Chief Justice Kant noted that such occurrences were not unprecedented. “Happens every time, not the first time. You can raise objections,” he observed, dismissing the statements as premature and hypothetical by adding, “We are not closing the case at all. We will see when the time comes.”Naidu defended the inclusions, stating, “It can be anyone who becomes 18 even today.” Separately, the court ordered the listing of a plea seeking an inquiry into poll-related violence in West Bengal, subject to the curing of defects.7. On the cut-off date for new inclusionsClarifying the legal position on late inclusions to the electoral roll, Justice Bagchi said that adding a name through Form 6 does not automatically grant the individual the right to participate in the immediate election. “The one which goes for polls is as per the qualifying date given by ECI. So the inclusion of such a person will not give him the right to vote in such an election,” the judge stated.The court noted the scale of the upcoming elections: the first phase covers 152 constituencies (polling April 23, nomination deadline April 6), and the second phase covers 142 constituencies (polling April 29, nomination deadline April 9). While the final voter list was published on February 28, 2026, the ECI has continually published supplementary lists – the fourth arriving recently—to accommodate cleared voters.8. On the impartiality of judicial officersAddressing Bandhopadhyay’s submissions that the judicial officers deployed as Election Registration Officers required unnecessary training for the task, the Bench defended their integrity. “Don’t raise frivolous allegations. This is an orientation, that’s all. Not on merit,” Chief Justice Kant retorted. Reassuring the stakeholders, Justice Bagchi stated, “We have no doubt on their impartiality or unbiasedness,” while acknowledging that the judges had been called upon to do something unprecedented.9. On the functioning of Appellate TribunalsThe court permitted the 19 newly constituted Appellate Tribunals, presided over by former High Court judges and notified by the ECI on April 20, to entertain fresh documents subject to strict verification, adding that the tribunals “can form their own procedure by following principles of natural justice”.To ensure transparency, the Bench directed the ECI to provide these tribunals with complete access to the specific reasons and remarks recorded by adjudicating officers regarding why a voter’s deletion from the roll was deemed warranted. When the ECI stressed it only wanted eligible voters on the list, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan retorted, “That was why a former High Court judge’s name was excluded.”10. On immediate relief for candidatesThe Bench demonstrated the practical application of the tribunals on April 3, directing Motab Shaikh, an Indian National Congress candidate whose name was deleted from the roll, to approach the Appellate Tribunal headed by Justice T.S. Sivagnanam to seek restoration of his name and permission to file nomination papers.During the hearing, Justice Bagchi highlighted that the petitioner had a passport and asked the ECI to investigate it, while noting the petitioner was a “mapped voter”. Naidu conceded that if the case was genuine, it would be resolved in “no time”.Chief Justice Kant dictated: “We request Hon’ble Presiding Judge of the Appellate Tribunal to entertain and decide the appeal with the assistance of ECI, preferably by the forenoon of 06.04.2026.” Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim appeared for the petitioner.The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for April 6, 2026 – the final date for filing nominations for the first phase of the Assembly elections – to review the compliance reports of state police officials and the final status of the adjudication process, with the High Court Chief Justice assuring the Bench that the remaining 13 lakh claims would be disposed of by April 7.