Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission's Training for Judges in West Bengal

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Election Commission's right to train judges involved in the electoral roll revision process in West Bengal. This decision comes amidst objections from the state government, highlighting the importance of judicial integrity and independence. The court's ruling emphasizes the necessity for a quasi-judicial approach to address discrepancies in voter rolls, while also allowing judges from neighboring states to assist. Concerns regarding the acceptance of identity proofs were raised, but the court assured that valid issues would be addressed. This development is crucial as West Bengal prepares for its electoral processes.

By Narendra Chaudhary Feb 27, 2026, 13:48 IST

Court Decision on Election Commission Training

On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected the West Bengal government's objections regarding the Election Commission's initiative to train judges assigned to handle claims and objections during the state's special intensive electoral roll revision.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi emphasized that the training provided by the commission does not supersede the court's directives, asserting the need to trust the judicial officers involved.

Earlier, on February 20, the Supreme Court mandated the appointment of judicial officers, specifically district judges or additional district judges, to assist in the electoral roll revision process amid ongoing disputes between the Trinamool Congress government and the Election Commission.

The court highlighted the necessity for a quasi-judicial approach to adjudicate claims and objections related to voter rolls, urging the Calcutta High Court to permit district judges with 'impeccable integrity' to address discrepancies, such as mismatches in parental names or age gaps.

Subsequently, the court also permitted judges from Odisha and Jharkhand to be involved in this process.

The draft electoral rolls for the state were released on December 16, revealing that over 58 lakh voters had been removed due to being marked as deceased, relocated, or absent.

During the proceedings, lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, raised concerns about the Election Commission's training module for judges, which outlined acceptable documentation.

Sibal pointed out that the Supreme Court had previously instructed the chief justice of the Calcutta High Court to oversee the modalities of this process.

However, the court maintained that it was appropriate for the Election Commission to collaborate with judges, given their new responsibilities.

Chief Justice Kant urged Sibal not to delay the process with minor objections, stating, 'This has to end. Let judicial officers work. They will work independently.'

Sibal further claimed that the Election Commission was rejecting identity proofs that had been previously accepted by court order, specifically mentioning that domicile certificates from sub-divisional officers were not being recognized.

Justice Bagchi responded that if these concerns were legitimate, the court would take them into consideration.