The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain the West Bengal government’s objections to the Election Commission training judges who have been deployed to decide on claims and objections during the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in the state, Live Law reported.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi said that the commission’s training module cannot override the court’s order and that the judicial officers must be trusted.

On February 20, the Supreme Court ordered that judicial officers of the rank of district judge or additional district judge be appointed to help complete the special intensive revision of the electoral rolls in West Bengal amid a tussle between the Trinamool Congress government and the Election Commission.

The court had noted that claims and objections about the voter rolls were required to be adjudicated in a quasi-judicial process by electoral registration officers. It had requested the Calcutta High Court to allow district judges with “impeccable integrity” to help with deciding on objections in the “logical discrepancy” category, such as mismatches in parents’ names or low age gap with parents.

Four days later, it also allowed judges from Odisha and Jharkhand to be deployed for the purpose.

The state’s draft electoral rolls were published on December 16. They showed that more than 58 lakh voters were removed after being marked dead, shifted or absent.

On Friday, lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, verbally mentioned the matter before the bench and objected to the Election Commission giving a training module to the judges, specifying the documents that can be accepted, Live Law reported.

Sibal said that as per the Supreme Court’s order, the chief justice of the Calcutta High Court was to decide on the modalities.

The court, however, said that it was not out of place for the poll panel to coordinate with the judges, since they had been given tasks that were different from their usual work.

“Please do not make small excuses to stall the process,” Kant told Sibal, according to Bar and Bench. “This has to end. Let judicial officers work. They will work independently.”

Sibal then alleged that the Election Commission was not accepting proofs of identity that were earlier permitted by court order. “They are saying domicile certificate by SDO [sub-divisional officer] will not be accepted [as identity proof for voters],” he told the court, according to Bar and Bench.

To this, Bagchi said that if the concerns are valid, the court would address them.