Bengal vs EC Showdown: Supreme Court Directs Judicial Officers For SIR In Poll Bound State

The Supreme Court on Friday told the Calcutta High Court to appoint judicial officers in poll-bound West Bengal to serve as Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to help the state carry out the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise.

The apex court noted that an unfortunate blame game was going on between the state government and the Election Commission over the SIR of electoral rolls.

What did the Supreme Court direct

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India directed the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to designate serving or retired judicial officers of the rank of district judge or additional district judge to address pending claims and objections related to voter list inclusions and exclusions.

“There is an unfortunate scenario of allegations and counter allegations which shows trust deficit between two constitutional functionaries… that is the state government and the Election Commission. Now, the process is stuck at the stage of claims and objections of the people who have been included in the discrepancy list,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said.

The SC said it had to pass an “extraordinary order” due to “extraordinary circumstances”.

Earlier, in response to the West Bengal Government’s aspersion that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been “weaponised”, the central agency on Wednesday clarified before the Supreme Court of India that it is being “terrorised” by the State government, not weaponised.

The counter-cum-clarification came from Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju to Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra’s opening arguments on behalf of the State in the pleas filed by the ED alleging obstruction by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other officials during a search operation at the Kolkata office of I-PAC, a political consultancy firm linked to the All India Trinamool Congress.

The apex court has earlier also rejected the State’s objection that the dispute ought to be heard by the Calcutta High Court. The Bench observed that the case involved larger constitutional questions that warranted examination by the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, CM Mamata Banerjee and the WB government, in their response, have challenged the maintainability of the ED’s petition filed under Article 32, arguing that the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights and does not extend to alleged statutory violations or disputes involving contested facts.

The WB CM has contended that the ED failed to avail alternate remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to her response, the agency did not invoke the procedure under Section 66(2) of the Act, did not seek registration of an FIR in West Bengal, and did not approach the jurisdictional Magistrate.

The CM Banerjee has further accused the ED of forum shopping, stating that it had filed an identical petition before the Calcutta High Court on January 9, 2026, prior to moving the Supreme Court on January 12. 

Also Read: Politics Overshadows India’s AI Moment? 10 Indian Youth Congress Members Detained After They Stage ‘Shirtless’ Protest At AI Summit 2026, BJP Slams Congress After High-Voltage Drama