West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee strongly questioned the rationale and urgency behind conducting the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise exclusively in West Bengal, asking why similar measures were not being undertaken simultaneously in states such as Assam. Speaking during the SIR hearing, she expressed concern over what she described as selective implementation, stating that such an important electoral exercise should follow a uniform national framework. Mamata Banerjee argued that rushing the process without adequate consultation and transparency could create confusion among voters and undermine public confidence in democratic institutions.
She further emphasised that West Bengal has consistently followed constitutional norms and cooperated with electoral authorities, making it unclear why the state was being prioritised for an intensive revision. According to her, electoral processes must be carried out in a fair, balanced, and inclusive manner, especially in a diverse country like India where migration, documentation, and socio-economic realities vary from region to region. She cautioned that hurried exercises risk disenfranchising genuine voters, particularly those from marginalised and migrant communities.
Mamata Banerjee also questioned the timing of the SIR exercise, pointing out that such revisions require adequate preparation, public awareness, and administrative readiness. She stressed that electoral integrity is best protected through careful planning rather than speed, and that any perception of political targeting could damage the credibility of the process. Her remarks highlighted concerns about whether sufficient safeguards were in place to ensure that no eligible voter would be excluded due to documentation gaps or procedural challenges.
The Chief Minister’s statements have intensified the political debate around the SIR exercise, drawing responses from opposition parties and election observers alike. Supporters argue that her intervention raises legitimate questions about consistency and fairness, while critics maintain that electoral revisions are routine administrative processes. As discussions continue, the issue has brought renewed attention to the broader need for transparency, uniformity, and trust in India’s electoral system, especially in states with complex demographic and migration patterns.
