E-Paper
SC directs states to deploy additional staff, substitutes for SIR exercise
The matter will be heard next in connection with other pending petitions challenging the SIR process in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Kerala.
The Supreme Court on Thursday underscored that states governments cannot distance themselves from their statutory obligation to provide adequate manpower for electoral work, making it clear that they are duty-bound to ensure the availability of booth level officers (BLOs) for the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. If existing employees are overburdened or face genuine hardship, states must be ready with substitutes, the court ordered.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that employees deputed for SIR are required to perform statutory duties and that states cannot withdraw personnel without providing replacements.
The bench delivered the directions while hearing a plea by Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK), the party of actor Vijay, highlighting the reported pressure experienced by some BLOs, including suicides by some officers, allegedly due to the heavy workload and coercive action initiated by the ECI under the Representation of the People Act (RoPA).
“The employees who have been deputed by the state governments/state election commissions at the disposal of the ECI for the purpose of performing statutory duties, including SIR, are obligated to perform such duties,” the court said.
At the same time, acknowledging hardships being reported from several States, the bench said that state governments must take proactive steps to mitigate the stress.
“If there is a difficulty being experienced on a case-to-case basis, the State government shall exempt such officers and provide an alternative,” said the bench, adding that states cannot “run away” from their obligation by simply withdrawing officers.
The bench also laid down a framework for states to follow. It directed states to depute additional staff at the disposal of the ECI so that the excessive work hours currently borne by BLOs can be reduced. Further, if an officer seeks exemption for specific health, family or personal reasons, the competent authority is required to consider such requests individually and replace the officer with another employee.
Importantly, the court clarified that exemptions will not entitle the state to withdraw deployed employees unless substitutes are arranged, so as to ensure that the state remains obligated to deploy the requisite workforce.
Reliefs not covered by Thursday’s order, including the request for ex-gratia support for the families of state government officers who died, may be pursued separately, the court noted.
The application filed by TVK pointed to instances where BLOs, mostly Anganwadi workers and schoolteachers, were forced to work early mornings or past midnight after completing their regular duties, leaving many on the brink of exhaustion.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for TVK, told the court that around 35 to 40 BLOs are reported to have died by suicide because of workload pressure, and 50 FIRs have been filed in Uttar Pradesh under Section 32 of the RoPA against officers unable to meet deadlines.
“There was a boy who had to go for his wedding. He said please give me leave, they suspended him. He committed suicide...when you are doing this, at least show the human side. Criminal action is harsh, it should not be initiated,” he submitted.
When Sankaranarayanan questioned why FIRs were being registered, the bench retorted: “It is not for the first time, earlier also they have been registering it.”
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the ECI, opposed the plea and said that coercive steps were used only where officers were reluctant to work. He pointed to Tamil Nadu, where over 90% of forms were already processed. He also countered arguments raised by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who questioned the one-month SIR timeline in Uttar Pradesh despite elections being two years away.
The bench, however, noted a critical point -- no state government has approached the court citing difficulty in providing manpower, suggesting that administrative support remains feasible.
The matter will be heard next in connection with other pending petitions challenging the SIR process in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Kerala.
