In an unprecedented and dramatic moment in India’s constitutional history, Mamata Banerjee, a sitting Chief Minister, personally appeared before the Supreme Court of India to argue her own case. The hearing related to the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal - an exercise the Trinamool Congress chief has consistently described as unconstitutional, hurried, and discriminatory.
While Chief Ministers have often challenged constitutional authorities through counsel, Banerjee’s decision to address the court herself marked a rare departure from convention. Observers in court described the atmosphere as charged, with the proceedings blending legal argumentation with a plea framed as a defence of “democracy” itself.
Opening submissions on behalf of Banerjee were made by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, who laid out a detailed statistical critique of the SIR process, arguing that the exercise was practically impossible to complete within the stipulated timeframe and inherently exclusionary in nature.
Divan placed hard numbers before the Bench to illustrate what he called the “mathematical impossibility” of the process. He pointed out that only 11 days remained for the final publication of electoral rolls, while the court had four days left to complete hearings. According to his submissions, 32 lakh voters had been categorised as “unmapped”, and approximately 1.36 crore people - nearly 20 per cent of the electorate, had been served notices under the category of ‘Logical Discrepancy’. He further submitted that since December 16, authorities had already conducted 88 lakh hearings, averaging 1.8 lakh hearings per day, yet around 63 lakh hearings remained pending. At the current pace, Divan argued, the administration would have to hear nearly 15.5 lakh persons per day, a figure he suggested was wholly unrealistic and procedurally unfair. The thrust of his argument was clear: the compressed timeline risked mass disenfranchisement.
Mamata Banerjee Speaks for Herself
What followed was the most striking moment of the hearing. Seeking permission from the Bench, Banerjee herself addressed the court, abandoning prepared legalese for an emotional, first-person narrative that framed the issue as a moral and constitutional crisis. “Not 5 but we will allow you 15 minutes” said CJI Surya Kant leading the bench along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi following Banerjee’s plea seeking 5 minutes of their time.
“The problem is, always our lawyers fight for the case and we are fighting from the beginning,” she told the court in opening remarks after extending greetings to the bench and also to the counsels representing the Election Commission. “But when everything is finished, when we are not getting justice, when justice is crying behind the door - then we thought, we are not getting justice anywhere.” Banerjee said she had written repeatedly to the Election Commission, sharing detailed objections, but received no response. In a deeply personal remark, she added, “I am a bonded labour. I am a very less important person, I am from a common family, I am not fighting for my party.”
She alleged that West Bengal had been singled out for the SIR exercise on the eve of elections, questioning both the intent and timing. “Only they have targeted Bengal on the eve of elections. Why, after 24 years, what was the hurry to do in two months what will take two years?” she asked.
Highlighting the social impact, Banerjee told the court that the exercise coincided with festival and harvest seasons, when migrant workers and rural populations are least accessible. “They are troubling people issuing notices,” she said, claiming that over 100 people had died, that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were under severe stress, and that several officials had been hospitalised due to what she described as relentless pressure from the Election Commission.
She also questioned the geographical selectivity of the exercise: “Bengal is targeted. Sir, tell me, why not Assam? Why not North East?”
Election Commission Counters
The Election Commission of India (ECI) strongly contested these allegations. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, told the court that the Commission was forced to appoint micro observers because the West Bengal government failed to provide an adequate number of Group B officers despite repeated reminders.
Dwivedi asserted that the appointment of micro observers was fully in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, and was necessitated by what he described as non-cooperation from the State administration. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, also representing the ECI, supported this submission, reinforcing the claim that the State government had not extended the required administrative support.
Banerjee, however, immediately refuted the charge. “This is not correct, My Lord,” she said, explaining that administrative structures differed across states. “Bihar has 44 districts and Bengal has 23. SDMs are limited to districts. Whatever capacity and strength we have, we have given. We are cooperating in every possible way.”
As the hearing drew to a close, Banerjee made a final appeal - with folded hands, she addressed the Bench directly: “My Lord, save democracy.”
At the end of the hearing, the bench issued notice to the Election Commission of India on Banerjee's plea, and sought their response by next Monday. Regarding the issue of micro-observers, the bench sought details from the State Government as a list of Group B officers who have been spared for the SIR duties and can be spared in the future, so that the court can decide if the micro-observers can be relieved. The CJI also asked Senior Advocate Dwivedi, the counsel of the ECI, to not issue hearing notices over name-spelling mismatches. CJI Surya Kant stressed on the fact while the exercise could be needed but no legitimate voter should be disenfranchised during the course of the exercise.
Legal experts note that while the court’s eventual ruling will turn on constitutional principles and statutory interpretation, the hearing itself has already entered legal folklore. A Chief Minister personally stepping into the well of the court, blending data-driven legal critique with an emotional appeal, has transformed a procedural challenge into a broader debate on federalism, electoral integrity, and the limits of administrative power. The Supreme Court’s decision on the SIR process is now awaited closely - not just in West Bengal, but across the country, where the outcome may set a significant precedent on how electoral revisions are conducted in the run-up to elections.
