Introduction

The background of the issue stems from the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls mandated by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of upcoming assembly elections in states like West Bengal. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has repeatedly flagged serious concerns, alleging the exercise is “unplanned and chaotic,” and is imposing “inhuman” pressure on Booth Level Officers (BLOs), reportedly leading to several deaths. The letter, dated November 20, 2025, from Mamata Banerjee (Chief Minister of West Bengal) to Mr. Gyanesh Kumar (Chief Election Commissioner of India), details these concerns, citing critical gaps in training, lack of clear communication, server failures, and impossible timelines that she claims place the entire process and its credibility at severe risk. She is requesting the CEC to immediately intervene, halt the ongoing exercise, and reassess the methodology to protect the integrity of the electoral process. 

Causes and Issue pointed in the Letter

The letter from Mamata Banerjee points out several issues and causes regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. These concerns are also supported by practical data and reports from various sources.  The key issues and their causes as described in the letter, are:

“Unplanned and chaotic, but also dangerous”: This is attributed to the absence of even basic preparedness, adequate planning or clear communication for the process from day one. The data strongly supports Mamata Banerjee’s argument that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process is “unplanned and chaotic” and places “its credibility at severe risk.” The fact that Bihar deleted 6.5 million voters and that 40% of applications were rejected in West Bengal confirms her assertion that the process is not succeeding at the large scale and that not all voters may be excluded. This information demonstrates that there are severe issues, such as a so-called unsound structure and a possible lack of inclusion, and directly opposes the idea of Gyanesh Kumar, who claims that the exercise is a success and that the Election Commission does everything properly when deleting information. 

“Structurally unsound” exercise: This is due to critical gaps in training, lack of clarity on mandatory documentation and the near-impossibility of meeting voters in the midst of their livelihood schedules. 

Process and credibility at “severe risk”: This risk stems from the unrealistic workload, impossible timelines, and inadequate support with online data entry which have collectively placed the entire process at risk. 

BLOs are now operating far beyond human limits: BLOs face an unimaginable workload and pressure because they are expected to manage their principal duties (many being teachers and frontline workers) while simultaneously conducting door-to-door surveys and handling complex e-submissions.

Struggles with online forms: Most are struggling with online forms due to lack of training, server failures, and repeated data mismatches.

Overall, the letter’s claims about operational and logistical challenges are strongly consistent with independent reporting and data points regarding the implementation of SIR phase two across multiple states. 

Mamata Banerjee’s Views on SIR Process: A Balanced Perspective

The Bihar SIR, which occurred earlier in 2025, was highly controversial and far from smooth:

Massive Deletions and Controversy: The case of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar in the Supreme Court is an example of the issues of enormous voter erasure in practice. The exercise eliminated some 65 lakh (6.5 million) names of the draft electoral roll, causing a great commotion and legal controversy. According to advocacy groups, the removals disproportionately impacted on vulnerable groups. The main issue of controversy was the original lack of transparency of the ECI, simpler to verify the status of a person. 

The Supreme Court intervened to protect voting rights, mandating the ECI to publicly publish a searchable, district-wise list of all deleted voters on the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar website and provide explicit reasons for each deletion. The court also required extensive publicity, using different media to make objections easier by the citizens who could be disenfranchised. This intervention highlighted the importance of strong protection and transparency to sustain the integrity and confidence of the public in the electoral process and balance efficiency in administration and basic rights. 

Concerns Over Credibility: In the Supreme Court case, it can be determined that the process was regarded as unreliable. The court instructed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to put online a list of all the voters who were removed with the reason of that removal, and thereby citizens would have confidence in the process again. To resolve the suspicion surrounding the Special Intensive Revision process, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to prepare lists of all the voters, who had been deleted in Bihar. The court had indicated that the ECI should post a searchable, district-by-district list of over 6.5 million deleted voters on the Chief Electoral Officer site and on the site of each District Election Officer. This was in order to get the people to believe in the process once more.

Every list was required to provide the specific cause of every deletion, such as whether the individual died, permanently moved or was previously registered. The order also indicated that the ECI must utilize the newspapers, radio, and social media to disseminate this information. Voters were instructed to verify whether they were deleted through their EPIC number and they could claim or object. The ECI followed the order. This opened up the process and assisted in the prevention of the improper disenfranchisement of voters.

“Structurally Unsound” Elements: The Bihar voting had major operational issues, despite the fact that it did not exactly copy the West Bengal criticisms. Errors in procedures and lack of transparency led to the elimination of legitimate voters and the omission of millions of potential voters off the roll.

An actual case example demonstrates that the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is poorly structured. A review of elector lists in Champaran, including Pipra, Motihari and Bagaha, revealed that the issues were new rather than redressing the previous ones. The report discovered that at one address that does not exist in Pipra, 505 individuals of various families were recorded in that address. This highlights door-to-door inspections that had failed and non-existent addresses remained on the list. There was also lack of transparency.

It turned out that the qualification of adult voters on the roll decreased, i.e. approximately 8 million individuals lost the right to vote. Muslim voters were eliminated more as compared to others. The Election Commission failed to provide a list in public view which indicates the reasons why 6.5 million voters were cut. This was not so transparent and this is what raised concerns about improper deletions and had to have the Supreme Court to intervene and rectify the situation.

Operational Strains: The working conditions of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) in Bihar were also not very cordial. The ECI has placed huge burden on the field staff with its dependence on technology and tight deadlines to complete their verifications of millions of applications and deletions in a door to door manner.  

In July 2025, a practical example of the overwhelming pressure on Booth Level Officers (BLOs) in the process of the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process was reported. In the case, Prakash, a teacher in the government who was a BLO, was given a large number of forms that had to be filled within a strict deadline. His booth area was under his responsibility and was expected to perform the door-to-door check and file forms with the help of the ECI app. 

The working requirements soon came to conflict with reality: he was now only 17 days to fill in and post a total of 1,200 forms on his block. The uploading of online forms was laborious and could take a long time; he only achieved an average of 20 online forms per a long day by mid-day and 50 online forms per a long day by the end of the day, even though he had a target of 100 online forms to be uploaded in a day. This difference between his target and real output was a symptom of the extreme level of work pressure and technological difficulty.

Prakash has explained how he would feel weary after a few days of continuous work and that the tight and strict schedules were impractical in providing a thorough and precise verification exercise. This incident is a case in point of the overworking of thousands of BLOs under tight deadlines and ineffective technology during the exercise of the Bihar SIR, which put the system to the test.

Comparison between West Bengal vs Bihar SIR Process

The “Bihar SIR case of 2025” refers to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India (ECI) that year, which resulted in significant controversy and legal challenges.

West Bengal can leverage these insights to conduct a smooth and uncontroversial electoral roll revision process.

Current SIR Situation in West Bengal

The number of enumeration forms distributed, filled, and taken by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) in West Bengal is associated with the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. As of mid-November 2025, over 7.61 crore (76.1 million) forms have been distributed. The exact number of forms filled and collected is a dynamic figure, but recent data highlights the following five numerical data points related to the process: 

BLOs are visiting homes to distribute the forms, collect the filled-in forms, and provide an acknowledgement receipt. The exercise is for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list to ensure an error-free electoral roll ahead of the 2026 state elections. The distribution coverage has reached over 99.42% of the total electorate. 

Conclusion

Mamata Banerjee has stated that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process had been unplanned and disorganized. This renders the election weak and untrustworthy. The issues are poor planning, lack of preparation and poor communication. These cause significant stress on Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and cause operational complications. According to Indian law, the SIR has to adhere to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the rules of the Election Commission. This makes the voter lists accurate, clear and transparent. The lists are also to be updated often in accordance with the law. The law requires frequent revision of the electoral rolls and this has to be done in a fair and a systematic manner in order to ensure integrity of the electoral process. The concerns expressed by Mamata Banerjee prove that the question of people getting their voting rights is something that needs to be carried out in a structured and legal manner. Hence, Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process should be carried out in the respect of Indian law, being transparent, fair, and the integrity of the electoral system in true democracy of India.