New Delhi, Feb 9 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has issued a show-cause notice to the Director General of Police (DGP) of West Bengal following allegations from the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding intimidation and disruption during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the election-bound state.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant mandated that the state police chief submit a personal affidavit responding to claims made in the ECI’s counter affidavit. The affidavit stated that despite complaints from election officials, no FIRs were filed against individuals accused of destroying objection forms and records related to the SIR process.

“Although these allegations are firmly denied by the state government, we recall our directive from January 19, which instructed police authorities to uphold law and order. We believe it is essential for the DGP to respond to these allegations,” remarked the Bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria.

To facilitate the SIR process in West Bengal and to address the concerns raised by petitioners opposing the revision, the Supreme Court issued several interim orders.

The CJI-led Bench instructed the West Bengal government to ensure that all 8,505 Group B officers, whose list was submitted to the court, report to the District Electoral Officers (DEOs) or Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) by 5 p.m. on Tuesday.

The apex court granted the ECI the authority to replace current EROs and Assistant EROs (AEROs) with newly available state government officers, provided they meet the necessary qualifications.

These state officials may undergo brief training before assisting the EROs/AEROs.

The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that micro-observers and state officials are to assist only the statutory authorities, with final decision-making power remaining with the EROs.

Recognizing concerns about potential delays due to new officials, the CJI-led Bench allowed the EROs an additional week beyond February 14 to finalize their scrutiny and decisions.

The order also highlighted the ECI’s clarification that micro-observers do not possess decision-making authority and are solely there to assist.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the ECI’s notice that certain officials had been flagged for suspension, yet no action had been taken by the state government.

It was noted that essential officers were transferred at critical times for the SIR exercise.

In response, the bench urged the Chief Minister’s Secretary to address this matter, emphasizing that the state government should act upon suspension recommendations.

The apex court also stated that the ECI has the right to replace underperforming officers.