Thu Dec 04 09:49:49 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary of the text, followed by a rewritten news article:

Summary:

The Supreme Court has ruled that state governments are responsible for managing the workload of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) involved in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, refusing to halt the process despite reports of excessive pressure and even suicides among BLOs. The court emphasized that BLOs, as state employees, have a duty to perform their assigned tasks, but states can replace or provide additional support to those unable to cope. The Election Commission (EC) defended the revision timeline, while petitioners argued the EC’s targets are unrealistic and leading to undue stress and potential legal repercussions for BLOs. The court acknowledged the burden on BLOs but insisted the revision proceed, placing the onus on states to address the employees’ well-being.

News Article:

Supreme Court Orders States to Handle BLO Workload Amid Electoral Roll Revision Concerns

New Delhi, December 4, 2025 – The Supreme Court today ruled that state governments are responsible for managing the workload and addressing the grievances of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) engaged in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. This decision comes amidst reports of extreme stress, FIRs filed, and even suicides among BLOs allegedly overburdened by the demands of the revision process.

While acknowledging the hardships faced by BLOs, largely comprised of teachers and aanganwadi workers, the court refused to halt or delay the second phase of the SIR, overseen by the Election Commission (EC), across nine states and three union territories.

The court, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, emphasized the statutory duty of BLOs to perform their assigned tasks. However, it directed state governments to consider individual requests for exemption and to substitute or supplement the workforce where necessary.

“Whenever an employee has any individual, specific reasons for seeking exemption from the assigned duties, the competent authority, the State government, may consider such requests on a case to case basis and replace such persons,” the Court stated.

The EC, represented by senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Maninder Singh, maintained that reports of overwhelming workload were exaggerated. They argued that the EC’s rationalization scheme limited each polling booth to 1200 electors and provided BLOs with a 37-day period to complete enumeration. They also pointed to high form distribution rates in states like Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.

However, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing petitioners from Kerala and West Bengal, argued that the EC’s accelerated timeline for the SIR, despite upcoming elections being years away, was creating unnecessary pressure on BLOs. He questioned the validity of the EC’s data on form completion. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, highlighted the threat of legal action against BLOs for failing to meet targets.

Despite these concerns, the Court remained firm, stating that the SIR could not be hampered. It shifted the responsibility to the states to ensure the well-being of their employees while meeting the EC’s deadlines. The decision underscores the ongoing debate between the need for efficient electoral processes and the welfare of the frontline workers tasked with implementing them.

Read More