Bengal SIR raises alarm over ‘system-driven’ voter deletions; officers say EROs sidelined

As Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) in West Bengal brace for hearings from December 27 that will determine the fate of lakhs of voters, a state officers’ association has sounded a serious alarm over what it describes as the risk of large-scale, “system-driven” deletions from electoral rolls—carried out without the knowledge or statutory involvement of EROs.

In a letter to West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Manoj Agarwal, with a copy marked to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) Officers’ Association flagged what it called the “suo motu system-driven deletion of electors” during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that the legally mandated role of EROs is being bypassed.

Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the ERO is the sole competent authority empowered to issue notices, conduct hearings and decide whether an elector is eligible to remain on the voters’ list. However, the association claims that in the current SIR process, notices are being generated centrally through the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) software, without any independent application of mind by the concerned EROs.

The concern mirrors issues earlier reported in Bihar, where EROs found “pre-filled notices” appearing on their log-ins on the ECI’s centralised portal—bearing their names but not generated by them.

An ERO in West Bengal, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the notices are being produced by the ECI’s software. “At present, notices are automatically generated for voters who are not mapped with the 2002 SIR data. In cases of ‘logical discrepancies’, we do not have the authority to decide which electors will be called for hearings. That decision rests entirely with the ECI,” the officer said.

In his letter, Saikat Asraf Ali, General Secretary of the officers’ association, warned that electors’ names could be deleted without the ERO’s knowledge, despite the law placing responsibility squarely on the officer. “The common people affected will only blame the ERO, unaware that the officer has been kept out of the deletion process by the Commission,” the letter stated.

Ali was quoted as saying by Indian Express that the association is seeking transparency and adherence to the law. “If deletions are being made, people must be clearly told that EROs are not responsible. We also do not want a single genuine elector’s name to be deleted,” he said.

The association further cautioned that large-scale deletions carried out without quasi-judicial hearings violate both statutory safeguards and principles of natural justice. It claimed that at the time of draft publication, many electors whose enumeration forms were not returned—due to reasons such as death, migration, absence or alleged duplication—were already deleted from the rolls.

Citing Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the officers underlined that an elector’s name can be removed only after the ERO gives the individual a “reasonable opportunity of being heard,” a role they say is being diluted in the present process.

The West Bengal CEO’s office, however, rejected the criticism, saying detailed instructions had been issued to all District Election Officers, EROs and Assistant EROs before the SIR began. “Only electors not mapped with the 2002 SIR are being served notices at this stage—around 31 lakh in West Bengal. Scrutiny of those with ‘logical discrepancies’ will follow, and the ECI will decide how notices are generated,” a senior official said.

CEO Agarwal has previously stated that a total of 1.67 crore electors fall under various discrepancy categories—31 lakh without mapping and 1.36 crore with logical discrepancies—though the final numbers may change after analysis.

Notably, the officers’ letter coincided with the ECI issuing fresh instructions to CEOs of 12 states and Union Territories where SIR is underway, directing verification of all documents submitted by electors through District Election Officers within five days—a step that was not followed during the SIR in Bihar.

The officers’ association concluded by urging the Commission to issue clear directions to restore the EROs’ statutory authority. “The final electoral rolls will be published under the ERO’s signature and seal alone,” the letter said, “and clarity of responsibility is essential to uphold both the law and public trust in the electoral process.”