New Delhi, Feb. 28 -- The Supreme Court of India on Friday orally dismissed objections raised by the Trinamool Congress to the Election Commission of India (ECI) imparting training to judicial officers deployed for claims verification under West Bengal's special intensive revision (SIR) process, telling petitioners not to "doubt judicial officers" or stall the exercise with "small excuses". A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain the oral mention made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared along with senior advocates Kalyan Bandhopadhyay and Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the TMC leaders. "Something strange has happened," submitted Sibal, contending that ECI had framed directions and modalities for judicial officers "behind your back" after the court's earlier orders. He argued that the training module specified which documents should be accepted and claimed that it instructed officers not to accept domicile certificates. The bench, however, expressed reluctance to reopen the issue. "Now don't doubt our judicial officers, ultimately they will decide," it said. When Sibal contended that, as per the court's order, the chief justice of the Calcutta High Court was to decide the modalities, the bench clarified that "modalities" referred to logistical arrangements, not substantive adjudicatory guidelines. "Don't stall the process with small excuses; we cannot hear like this. There has to be an end to this. We passed an order beyond your imagination," the court remarked, asserting that judicial officers were fully aware of the Supreme Court's directions. It further underlined that the apex court had already clearly specified the documents that could be considered. "Our directions are clear as daylight, they cannot be overridden," said the bench, adding that ECI's training module could not supersede the court's orders. "Who else other than ECI will give the training?", it asked. When Sibal requested that judicial officers be asked to decide independently and uninfluenced by ECI's instructions, the bench maintained that no further clarification was necessary. "Our orders are clear," the court said emphatically. It also pointed out the scale of the exercise, remarking that for the SIR work, "the entire judiciary has been evacuated." On February 24, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed ECI to continue publishing supplementary voter lists even after the final electoral roll is notified on February 28, in order to ensure that no eligible voter is disenfranchised ahead of the upcoming assembly elections. The bench deemed that voters included in supplementary lists would be treated as part of the final roll published on February 28. The move effectively neutralised rigid statutory timelines that might otherwise bar inclusion of voters whose verification remained pending. The court also authorised the chief justice of the Calcutta High Court to requisition additional judicial manpower not only from within West Bengal but also from neighbouring states such as Jharkhand and Odisha to complete adjudication of claims "on a war footing". Over 250 serving and retired district judges are currently engaged in deciding nearly five million claims and objections. The extraordinary measures came after the chief justice of the Calcutta High Court informed the apex court that approximately eight million cases under categories such as "logical discrepancies" and "unmapped category" required adjudication -- a scale that made completion before February 28 virtually impossible under ordinary timelines. The SIR exercise, announced last November in 12 regions including West Bengal, has seen nearly 13.6 million electors flagged for "logical discrepancy". The draft roll released in December dropped 5.89 million names, intensifying political confrontation between the TMC-led state government and the ECI. Earlier, the SC termed the situation an "extraordinary" one and directed deployment of serving and retired district judges to adjudicate disputed voter claims, citing a "trust deficit" between constitutional authorities. On February 25, the bench issued clarification regarding documents that could be relied upon during verification. Responding to a mention by senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu for ECI, the court clarified that the Madhyamik (Class 10) admit card would not serve as a standalone document for mapping parentage with the 2002 electoral rolls....