West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has raised serious allegations against the Election Commission of India (ECI), claiming that the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state is being misused to exclude voters rather than to correct electoral records. In her third letter to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar since the exercise began, Banerjee highlighted multiple instances of administrative and procedural lapses, which she says have caused widespread harassment, financial losses, and even fatalities among voters.

Banerjee’s letter, spanning three typed pages with an additional handwritten note, paints a picture of an electoral revision process that she argues is politically biased, insensitive, and excessively rigid in its execution. She asserts that the SIR, designed to strengthen democracy by updating voter lists and including eligible citizens, has instead become a mechanism for exclusion.

“The hearing process has become largely mechanical, driven purely by technical data and completely devoid of the application of mind, sensitivity and human touch,” Banerjee wrote.

The chief minister claimed that the revision exercise’s focus appears “neither of correction nor of inclusion… but solely of deletion and of exclusion.” According to her, this approach undermines both democratic principles and the constitutional rights of citizens. Adding a personal touch, Banerjee noted in her handwritten postscript, “Though I know you won’t reply or clarify. But (it is) my duty to inform you (of) the details.”

Human Cost of Administrative Lapses

Banerjee cited alarming human consequences arising from the SIR, including 77 deaths, four suicide attempts, and 17 hospitalizations. She attributed these incidents to fear, coercion, excessive workload, and harassment stemming from seemingly minor discrepancies in voter records.

Even trivial inconsistencies, such as slight differences in spelling or age, have led to what Banerjee described as “coercive hearings” and undue pressure on ordinary citizens. She provided examples from her own name and family records, noting that variations like ‘Mamta’ instead of ‘Mamata’ or ‘Kumar’ being recorded as ‘Komar’ could be treated as grounds for scrutiny. Similarly, she highlighted that minor age differences among children and parents, such as an 18- or 19-year gap, were being unnecessarily questioned.

“Do such trivial discrepancies justify coercive action that results in harassment, inconvenience and for many even losses of daily wages? Who will compensate citizens for the hardship caused by such tyrannical actions of the ECI?” she asked.

Women voters have been particularly affected, Banerjee observed. Many women who changed surnames after marriage have been summoned to prove their identity, a practice she described as a “grave insult” and an example of bureaucratic insensitivity.

Allegations of Political Bias and Irregularities

Banerjee also raised concerns about technical and administrative inconsistencies in the SIR process. She claimed that “so-called ‘logical discrepancies’ are being selectively targeted in some constituencies only with political bias,” while erratic backend changes and a different portal for West Bengal have confused election officials and disrupted the revision process.

Furthermore, Banerjee alleged that certain observers and micro-observers, many of whom lack proper training, were acting beyond their mandate. She described instances where officials verbally abused citizens and labeled them “Desh, Drohi” (traitors to the nation) for minor errors in their voter records.

Migrant workers and voters residing outside the state have also faced difficulties, according to the chief minister. She highlighted that only select electors were allowed to appear via authorized family members, forcing many others to travel or face bureaucratic hurdles to ensure their inclusion in the rolls.

High-Profile Summons and Public Concern

Banerjee underscored the arbitrary nature of certain summonses issued under the SIR, highlighting cases where eminent personalities in West Bengal were called upon. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, poet Joy Goswami, actor and Member of Parliament Deepak Adhikari, cricketer Mohammed Shami, and a monk from the Bharat Sevashram Sangha were among those reportedly summoned to verify their electoral details.

“Does this not amount to sheer audacity on the part of the ECI?” Banerjee wrote, questioning whether such actions were necessary or justifiable.

By citing high-profile cases alongside ordinary voters’ struggles, she aimed to demonstrate that the SIR process has created unnecessary anxiety and legal burdens across social strata.

Call for Corrective Action

In her letter, Banerjee urged the Election Commission to take immediate and appropriate corrective measures. While acknowledging that it may be “very late” in the ongoing exercise, she appealed for intervention to minimize harassment and inconvenience for West Bengal’s citizens.

“Hope good sense prevails, and appropriate corrective actions are taken from your end to minimise the harassment, inconvenience and agony of the common citizen of the state,” she wrote.

Banerjee’s demands included greater sensitivity in evaluating minor discrepancies, a more humane and citizen-centric approach to hearings, and the rectification of technical and administrative irregularities that have disproportionately affected certain constituencies. She emphasized the importance of fairness, transparency, and adherence to the democratic principles that underpin India’s electoral process.

Wider Implications

The allegations raise broader questions about the conduct of electoral rolls revision in India and the potential for administrative measures to be perceived—or actually used—as politically motivated. In West Bengal, where the political environment is highly polarized ahead of elections, the integrity of voter inclusion processes is under heightened scrutiny.

Election officials have traditionally maintained that SIR exercises are standard procedure to maintain accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls. However, Banerjee’s letter brings attention to the need for careful oversight, training for observers, and a balance between technical accuracy and citizen-friendly implementation.

Observers and political analysts suggest that Banerjee’s intervention may also be aimed at creating public awareness about the alleged hardships faced by ordinary citizens. By highlighting extreme outcomes like deaths and hospitalizations, the chief minister seeks to pressurize the ECI to revisit its approach while framing the narrative in terms of democratic rights and citizen welfare.

Conclusion

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s letter to the Chief Election Commissioner has cast a spotlight on serious concerns in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Allegations of coercion, harassment, political bias, and administrative mismanagement have raised the stakes for the Election Commission, which is tasked with ensuring fair and transparent elections in a politically sensitive state.

With the state heading toward crucial assembly elections, the handling of the SIR exercise is likely to remain under intense public and political scrutiny. Banerjee’s call for corrective action underscores the tension between procedural rigor and citizen rights, highlighting the challenges faced in balancing electoral integrity with human considerations.

As the ECI examines the concerns raised, the outcome of this controversy could set precedents not only for West Bengal but also for future electoral exercises across India, emphasizing the need for both technical accuracy and humane, citizen-centric governance in the democratic process.

---