The Supreme Court of India stepped in on Thursday to address the escalating political controversy surrounding the alleged suicides of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) under the strain of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The apex court provided clear directives to state governments, aiming to alleviate the immense work pressure on these ground-level election officials.
Court's Directive: Health Concerns Must Be Heeded
Hearing a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu political party, TVK, which alleged that the Election Commission was registering cases against BLOs even as many were driven to suicide by the workload, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued significant orders. The bench emphasized that state governments must substitute any BLO who is unwilling or unable to perform the SIR work due to health or mental issues with another government employee.
The court firmly stated that the statutorily mandated revision work cannot be halted. However, it placed the onus on the states to ensure that employees deputed as BLOs are fit for the task. "The state govt concerned has provided employees to do the statutorily mandated work which is being carried out by EC," the bench noted, clarifying that the Election Commission itself cannot assess the fitness of individual employees for BLO duties.
Two Key Directions to Ease the Burden
The Supreme Court bench issued two specific directions to tackle the crisis. Firstly, it suggested that concerned states may depute additional workforce to the Election Commission to reduce the existing burden on Booth Level Officers. Secondly, and more crucially, the court ordered that if any employee seeks exemption from SIR work for a specific reason, the competent state authority must consider such requests individually and replace the employee.
The bench made it unequivocally clear that the state is bound to provide a substitute for every exempted employee. "The workforce of employees put at the disposal of EC as BLOs can be increased by the states but under no circumstance it can be reduced," the court asserted.
EC's Stand and the Issue of FIRs
During the proceedings, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Election Commission, provided an update on the SIR progress, stating that the distribution of enumeration forms was 96% complete in Tamil Nadu and 86% in Uttar Pradesh. Defending the Commission's position, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that the work was proceeding smoothly and that some parties were politicizing isolated incidents. He questioned the narrative of excessive workload, asking, "Every BLO is to sign and upload approximately 30 forms a day. Is this too much of a workload?"
The petition had raised concerns about FIRs being filed against BLOs for not meeting targets. The court acknowledged that FIRs had been registered, including cases in Noida (Uttar Pradesh) and by Bengal police, but noted this was not an unprecedented action by the EC. The bench pointed out the EC's dilemma, stating, "What else can EC do? The state govt employees are not under its control. At the same time, the statutorily mandated work must be completed."
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, questioned the urgency behind completing the SIR, suggesting the timeline could be extended to prevent overburdening the officials. The Supreme Court's intervention now mandates a more humane and structured approach, placing responsibility squarely on state administrations to safeguard their employees while ensuring the critical democratic exercise of updating electoral rolls is completed efficiently.
