SC Refuses to Halt Electoral Roll Revision, Puts Responsibility on States to Support Overburdened BLOs
By Tajdar H Zaidi
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (December 4, 2025) declined to pause the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, asserting that the process cannot be disrupted by the reported distress among Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
Instead, the Court placed full responsibility on State governments to address workforce grievances and ensure adequate staffing support.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that BLOs, as State employees, are legally bound to discharge statutory duties assigned to them by the Election Commission (EC).
The judges stressed that the SIR is a time-bound constitutional exercise and must proceed without interruption across the nine States and three Union Territories where it is currently underway.
The Court directed State governments to substitute any employee facing legitimate personal difficulties or distress and, if necessary, deploy additional manpower to ease workload pressures and prevent burnout.
The Bench stated that State authorities must take proactive steps to “obviate the hardships” faced by BLOs.
It clarified that employees with specific personal challenges—such as medical conditions or pregnancy—may seek exemptions to be considered case-by-case basis by competent authorities, who may then appoint replacements.
Why the Supreme Court Took This Position
The decision followed a plea citing extreme stress among BLOs, including allegations of worker collapse, mental distress, and even suicides due to tight deadlines and heavy enumeration targets.
Petitioners, represented by senior advocates including Kapil Sibal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued that BLOs—often primary school teachers and anganwadi workers—were threatened with strict legal action and loss of employment if they failed to meet targets.
They also raised concerns about FIRs reportedly filed against BLOs under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The Election Commission strongly rejected these claims as “imaginary exaggerations,” submitting that each booth has a manageable average of 1,200 electors and that officers have 37 days to complete assigned tasks.
The EC maintained that the revision timeline was essential to keep electoral records accurate and prevent alleged irregularities.
The Court, however, shifted responsibility from the EC to State governments, noting that BLOs are under State employment and States must take humane and administrative measures rather than allowing distress to derail a critical national process.
The Bench underscored that the electoral roll revision is foundational to fair elections and cannot be allowed to fail due to administrative mismanagement or staffing crises.
#SupremeCourt #ElectionCommission #BLOs #ElectoralRollRevision #DemocracyInAction #SCJudgment #IndiaElections #AdministrativeReforms #BoothLevelOfficers #GovernanceIndia
