With West Bengal elections approaching, the political temperature spiked in Delhi on Wednesday as Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee took her battle with the Election Commission straight to the Supreme Court. At the heart of the dispute was the Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the poll-bound state.
Banerjee arrived well before the hearing, wearing her trademark white sari and a black shawl. The black, she later said, symbolised protest — both against what she claimed were over 100 deaths linked to the SIR process and in solidarity with affected families. There was an unmistakable sense of theatre as she carried the Bengal fight into the country’s highest court.
In an unprecedented move, Mamata Banerjee became the first sitting Chief Minister to appear and argue her case in person before the Supreme Court.
As she walked through the corridors — lawyers pausing, some bowing, others quietly filming on their phones — Banerjee folded her hands briefly, smiled, and avoided questions from the media, flanked by her legal team and Z+ security.
Inside Courtroom No. 1, she was initially asked to sit in the front row as a petitioner-in-person. Instead, she chose to sit in the visitors’ gallery alongside her lawyer until the matter was called. Security personnel swiftly stepped in, confiscating phones from those attempting to take selfies.
The courtroom was packed. Lawyers crowded in to witness what was already being seen as a rare moment — a powerful Chief Minister challenging the Election Commission in person. Though many expected the SIR matter to be heard early, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Suryakant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi took up other cases first.
When the matter was finally called around 12:45 pm, Banerjee moved to the front row with TMC MP and senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee. Despite her small frame amid senior counsels, her presence was unmistakable as she urged the court to “protect democracy in West Bengal.”
Maintaining courtroom decorum, the Chief Minister initially let her lawyers outline the arguments, occasionally whispering instructions to state counsel Debanjan Mondal. But when the Election Commission’s counsel claimed that voter names were not being deleted over “minor spelling mistakes,” Banerjee sought permission to speak.
With folded hands, she addressed the bench herself.
“Lawyers always fight cases. But when justice is crying behind closed doors, someone must speak,” she said, quoting Rabindranath Tagore. “I wrote six letters to the Election Commission. I received no reply. That is why I am here.”
The bench questioned why the executive head of a state was arguing personally. “You have the best lawyers representing you,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Banerjee responded that she was appearing not as a Chief Minister or party leader, but as an ordinary citizen of Bengal.
“I am a resident of Bengal. I come from an ordinary family. That is why I am here,” she said. The CJI allowed her to place her submissions on record.
In her arguments, Banerjee alleged that the SIR exercise had become a tool for mass deletion rather than verification. She claimed that micro-observers brought in from BJP-ruled states — many unfamiliar with Bengali — were misinterpreting names and documents, marking them as “logical discrepancies.”
She said voters were initially relieved when the court directed acceptance of Aadhaar, domicile and state-issued certificates, but alleged that the Election Commission later refused to honour them.
“After 24 years, why the hurry to finish in four months what should take two years?” she asked, pointing out that notices were issued during harvest and festival seasons, when many people were away from home.
Banerjee also raised concerns over more than 150 reported deaths of Booth Level Officers, including alleged suicides due to work pressure. Producing photographs and newspaper clippings, she described the process as “anti-women,” citing cases where women’s names were flagged after marriage due to surname or address changes.
“If a daughter moves to her in-laws’ house, it becomes a mismatch,” she said. “This is not verification. This is discrepancy mapping.”
She further alleged that key decisions were being made by micro-observers rather than authorised officers, calling it a “WhatsApp commission.”
When Election Commission lawyers accused the state government of non-cooperation, Banerjee reacted sharply, dismissing claims that Bengal had failed to depute sufficient officers.
“They are telling tales,” she said, insisting that the state had provided all available officials.
At the end of the hearing, the Chief Justice issued notice to the Election Commission and directed the state to ensure adequate deputation of officers. Banerjee nodded in agreement, assuring compliance.
Outside the courtroom, scenes bordered on the dramatic. Lawyers crowded around her, one even handing over a copy of his book. Videos of advocates trailing her to her car soon flooded social media.
By the end of the day, Mamata Banerjee had ensured that Bengal’s electoral battle was no longer just a political issue — it was now squarely before the Supreme Court, and the nation was watching.