With Assembly elections in West Bengal approaching, the political confrontation over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls moved decisively from the streets to the judicial arena on a cold Wednesday morning in New Delhi, as West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee arrived at the Supreme Court of India to directly challenge the Election Commission of India.
Banerjee reached the Supreme Court well before the hearing, her convoy drawing attention as it halted at the court gates. Clad in her customary white sari, she wore a black shawl, which she described as a symbol of protest. According to her, the black attire was meant to mourn and stand in solidarity with families allegedly affected by more than a hundred deaths linked to the SIR exercise. The gesture underscored her claim that the revision process had caused immense human suffering across the state.
There was a visible sense of purpose in her demeanour as she carried a political fight into a constitutional forum. The moment was historic: for the first time, a sitting Chief Minister chose to personally argue a case before the Supreme Court, taking the extraordinary step of appearing as a petitioner-in-person.
As she moved through the court corridors, Banerjee was flanked by senior lawyers and protected by Z+ security personnel. Lawyers paused to acknowledge her presence, some bowing respectfully, others discreetly capturing photographs on their phones. She responded briefly with folded hands and a faint smile, declining to engage with the media’s questions.
Inside the courtroom, she was initially asked to take a seat in the front row reserved for petitioners arguing in person. Banerjee, however, opted to sit in the visitors’ gallery alongside her counsel until her matter was called. Security officials cordoned off the area and confiscated phones from those attempting to take selfies or record videos inside the courtroom.
Courtroom No. 1 was packed, with a large number of lawyers assembling to witness the hearing on the politically sensitive issue of the SIR in West Bengal. Although there was an expectation that the matter would be taken up early, given Banerjee’s presence and the public interest involved, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Suryakant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi chose to hear other listed matters first.
When the case was finally called around 12:45 pm, Banerjee moved to the front row along with Trinamool Congress MP and senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee. Despite her diminutive stature, she commanded attention in the courtroom as she made an emotional appeal to the bench to “protect democracy in West Bengal.”
Initially, Banerjee maintained courtroom protocol, allowing senior advocates to present the legal and factual framework of her challenge. She occasionally whispered instructions to the state’s counsel, Debanjan Mondal. The tone shifted when counsel for the Election Commission argued that voter names were not being removed for minor spelling errors. At that point, Banerjee sought the court’s permission to intervene directly.
With folded hands, she requested leave to address the bench herself. Quoting Rabindranath Tagore, she said that while lawyers argue cases, justice sometimes “cries behind closed doors,” and that was why she felt compelled to speak personally. She told the court she had written six letters to the Election Commission without receiving any response.
The Chief Justice questioned why the executive head of a state was arguing in person when she had some of the country’s most experienced lawyers representing her. Banerjee replied that she was appearing not as a party leader but as an ordinary citizen and litigant. She described herself as a resident of Bengal from a humble background, insisting that her presence was rooted in her duty to her people.
The bench, while remarking that no one disputed her residence in Bengal, allowed her to place her submissions on record.
In her arguments, Banerjee alleged that the SIR process was being misused primarily for deletion of names rather than genuine verification. She accused micro-observers, many of whom she claimed were brought in from BJP-ruled states and were unfamiliar with Bengali, of mistranslating names and details into English and then treating those errors as “logical discrepancies” to justify voter deletions.
She told the court that people in West Bengal had initially welcomed an earlier judicial direction allowing Aadhaar cards, domicile certificates and other state-issued documents to be accepted. However, she alleged that the Election Commission later refused to recognise these documents, targeting Bengal on the eve of elections.
Questioning the urgency of the exercise, Banerjee asked why, after a gap of 24 years, the revision was rushed through in four months instead of being conducted over a longer period. She pointed out that notices were issued during harvest season and festival periods like Durga Puja, when many residents were away from their homes.
Producing newspaper clippings and photographs, she spoke of what she described as the pain of more than 150 deaths of Booth Level Officers, including alleged suicides attributed to work pressure. She further questioned why the exercise was initiated in Bengal and not in other states such as Assam or those in the Northeast, calling the process discriminatory and “anti-women.”
Highlighting gender-related issues, Banerjee cited cases where women’s names were flagged due to changes in surname or address after marriage. She argued that women moving to their in-laws’ homes or changing surnames were unfairly penalised and deleted from voter lists under the guise of discrepancy mapping.
She also raised objections to the role of micro-observers, alleging that they were effectively making decisions from within the Election Commission’s office and that their communications were being accepted over those of Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant EROs. She derisively referred to this mechanism as a “WhatsApp commission.”
When Election Commission counsel accused the West Bengal government of non-cooperation, Banerjee reacted sharply. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, argued that micro-observers were required because the state had failed to depute enough Sub-Divisional Magistrates and Class II officers as Assistant EROs. Interrupting her own counsel, Shyam Divan, Banerjee rejected the allegation, stating that the number of officers depended on district strength and that the state had deputed all available personnel.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Chief Justice issued notice to the Election Commission, seeking its response, and directed the executive head of the state to ensure adequate deputation of officers for verification. Banerjee immediately assured the bench that the state would comply.
As she exited the courtroom, she was once again surrounded by lawyers and media, with one advocate even presenting her with a copy of his book. Videos of lawyers trailing her to her vehicle quickly circulated online.
By choosing to personally argue before the Chief Justice of India, Mamata Banerjee transformed the SIR controversy into a constitutional confrontation, ensuring that West Bengal’s electoral battle was no longer confined to political rallies or public protests, but firmly placed before the country’s highest judicial authority.
