West Bengal SIR Controversy: Justice Bagchi Flags Concerns Over ECI Software, Notice Issued for Middle Name Omission
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal has come under judicial focus after Supreme Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised concerns about the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) digital verification system. During court proceedings, the judge questioned the reliability of the software, particularly after it issued notices to voters for minor discrepancies such as the omission of middle names.
ECI Software Faces Judicial Scrutiny
Justice Bagchi observed that the software used for voter verification appears overly restrictive in its parameters. He noted that the system was flagging individuals based on rigid data matching rules that fail to consider India’s diverse naming conventions.
In many parts of the country—especially in Bengal—middle names like “Kumar” are used inconsistently across documents. The court indicated that treating such variations as discrepancies could lead to unnecessary legal and administrative complications for genuine voters.
Cultural Naming Practices Highlighted
The bench emphasized that electoral verification must account for socio-cultural realities. Variations in spelling, abbreviated names, or the absence of middle names are common and often harmless.
Justice Bagchi cautioned that a purely automated approach, without human oversight, risks misidentifying legitimate voters. He stressed that technology should adapt to social contexts rather than forcing rigid standardization.
Large Number of Voters Flagged
Figures presented during the hearing revealed that the AI-enabled system had flagged a massive pool of voters under the category of “logical discrepancies.” These included mismatches in names, ages, and family linkages.
Many of the flagged cases reportedly stemmed from minor clerical errors, spelling differences, or documentation inconsistencies rather than deliberate falsification. The scale of the flagging exercise raised concerns about potential voter harassment and administrative overload.
Notices Issued Over Minor Omissions
One of the court’s strongest observations related to notices being sent over the omission of middle names. Justice Bagchi questioned whether such minor data gaps justified formal scrutiny.
Petitioners argued that linguistic diversity, regional dialects, and informal documentation practices often lead to such variations. Issuing legal notices in these cases, they said, could intimidate ordinary citizens and discourage electoral participation.
Political and Legal Debate Intensifies
The SIR exercise has also sparked political reactions in West Bengal. Leaders from the ruling establishment have voiced apprehension that large-scale verification could result in wrongful deletions from voter rolls.
Multiple petitions challenging the process and the technology behind it were filed, bringing the matter before the Supreme Court. Legal experts argued that voting rights are constitutional in nature and any revision must ensure transparency, due process, and accountability.
Court Stresses Human Oversight
While the judiciary has not stopped the revision drive, it has urged the Election Commission to adopt a balanced approach. The court underscored that digital tools should assist election officials—not replace human judgment.
It also emphasized that voters flagged by the system must be given fair opportunities to respond, submit documents, and correct records before any adverse action is taken.
Implications for Future Electoral Revisions
The ongoing case has opened a wider conversation about the role of artificial intelligence in electoral governance. As India increasingly adopts digital tools for large-scale administrative exercises, questions of accuracy, inclusion, and accountability remain critical.
The outcome of the proceedings could shape how technology is deployed in future voter verification drives—not just in West Bengal, but across the country.
