Supreme Court says legality of Bengal SIR 'logical discrepancy' exercise remains undecided

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana say that its decision in the Bihar SIR matter did not amount to a final determination of every issue arising from SIR

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it has not yet adjudicated the legality of the Election Commission's use of "logical discrepancy" category to scrutinise voters' details during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court further said that it allowed the use of this category in West Bengal as an "interim arrangement".

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that its decision in the Bihar SIR matter did not amount to a final determination of every issue arising from the SIR.

The observations were made while hearing a plea alleging a lack of transparency in notices issued to voters during the ongoing SIR exercise in Delhi and when senior advocate D S Naidu, appearing for the poll body, submitted that the bench had examined every stage of the SIR process and upheld its validity.

According to LiveLaw report, in the SIR of electoral rolls, Logical Discrepancy (LD) is a category used by the ECI to flag voter records that contain inconsistencies or apparent anomalies and require further verification. Unlike "unmapped" voters, whose details cannot be linked to the previous intensive revision of electoral rolls, LD cases generally involve voters whose records have been linked but contain details that the ECI considers inconsistent.

Justice Bagchi said the court's decision in the Bihar SIR matter did not amount to a final determination of every issue arising from the revision exercise.

"Bihar is not a final determination of every question arising in these proceedings. In Bihar, the Election Commission had not initially undertaken logical discrepancy as a category. We permitted it as an interim arrangement in West Bengal. We have not finally adjudicated upon the legality of the logical discrepancy exercise," Justice Bagchi said.

The judge added that the bench did not wish to make further comments on the issue, saying that oral observations in sensitive matters were often quoted out of context and portrayed as final judicial determinations.

"We do not wish to make further comments because observations in sensitive matters are sometimes taken out of context. These observations are not conclusive. There is a difficulty when judicial observations are repeatedly cited out of context as if every issue has already been decided," he said.