New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (EC) Monday drew the Supreme Court’s attention to what it called “scientifically impossible” anomalies in voter–parent mapping in West Bengal, including seven instances where more than 100 children were found linked to a single parent.
The most striking discrepancies involved this mapping, while the EC also flagged cases where the recorded age of a grandparent was less than 40 years, where the elector’s name on the existing roll did not match what was on the previous Special Intensive Revision (SIR) roll, or where the recorded age difference between an elector and a parent was less than 15 years and, in others, more than 50 years.
In court, the EC said that it identified 4,59,054 instances of more than five children linked to a single parent; 2,06,056 cases of more than six children; 8,628 instances of more than ten children; 50 cases of more than twenty children; 14 of more than 30 children; 10 of more than 40 children; and 10 of more than 50 children.
In one of the assembly constituencies, a single elector was linked to 389 children.
The EC stated that “many of such instances are scientifically impossible to entertain as valid mapping” and warranted enhanced scrutiny to “weed out the chance of fraudulent mapping”.
The EC was appearing before a three-judge SC Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi, in response to a slew of petitions by Trinamool Congress (TMC), alleging severe irregularities in the West Bengal SIR exercise. For instance, a plea by TMC MP Dola Sen has argued that the SIR orders are “arbitrary and unconstitutional” and would lead to invalid deletion of genuine voters.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the EC defended its technological tools and data scrutiny measures, which, it said, would ensure a “pure electoral roll” that complied with Article 326 of the Constitution as well as the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The commission clarified that identifying “logical discrepancies” did not amount to deletion, but only provided an opportunity to establish eligibility through prescribed documents.
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court Monday directed the EC to publish the names of at least 1.25 crore persons against whom “logical discrepancy” objections have been raised during the West Bengal SIR.
Noting that nearly two crore notices had been issued across mapped, unmapped, and logical discrepancy categories, it ordered the display of a list of persons flagged for every logical discrepancy—say parent name mismatches, or age inconsistencies—at the levels of gram panchayats, blocks, and wards.
Objections can be filed within 10 days, and additional time will be given for submitting documents. The court directed the state government to ensure adequate manpower and proper law and order arrangements at the venues of SIR hearings.
On the nature of ‘discrepancies’
The EC relied on figures drawn from the ongoing SIR exercise in West Bengal to justify its use of “logical discrepancy” filters.
Explaining the nature of “logical discrepancies”, the EC highlighted cases of elector-parent age gaps of over 50 years, citing the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) 2019-21, which has noted that fertility rates for women become “negligible after 45 years of age”.
When EC counsel Rakesh Dwivedi referred to “logical discrepancy” involving a 15-year age gap between parents and children, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the assumption underlying the filter by observing, “How can a 15-year age gap between mother and son be a logical discrepancy…? We are not in a country where child marriages are not a reality.”
While acknowledging that such situations might occur, the EC affidavit stressed that the instances “give rise to suspicion” of fraudulent mapping or data entry errors, particularly in light of statutory marriage ages in India.
The commission also addressed concerns over its mode of communication during the SIR process. Defending the use of WhatsApp, the EC said it was a “speedy means of communication”. Policy decisions were communicated through formal written orders, but during implementation, officials on the ground often sought clarifications, which, it said, were provided using video-conferencing and WhatsApp. According to its affidavit, such directions were “purely incidental to the conduct of the SIR exercise” and remained within its scope.
Rejecting allegations of automated deletions or algorithmic bias, the EC stated that there was “no automated generation of notices”. Notices, it said, were issued by electoral registration officers, after an “application of mind”, based on field inputs from booth-level officers.
On the other hand, it denied claims that the SIR process disproportionately affected women or minority communities, calling such assertions unsupported.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)