Known for her flamboyance in political circles, TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee wore a different robe when she appeared in person in the Supreme Court to contest the case on SIR exercise in West Bengal. While she was received well by the Apex Court and given sufficient time and patience, perhaps beyond what she would have been expecting, her role as ‘Petitioner-in-Person’ was seen as a paradox by many, with some legal critics contesting it as “constitutionally improper and legally untenable”. The objection, by way of a petition, has been outrightly rejected by the Apex Court itself, for several valid reasons.
In corridors of power, her gesture of personal appearance was seen as ‘political theatrics’, with some even looking at it from the assembly polls’ angle, contending that she is trying to make her presence felt in a loud manner ‘through Supreme Court’. This interpretation, however, has no implications other than political inference.
As a trained lawyer, Banerjee personally argued that the SIR process was designed to ‘bulldoze’ the people of Bengal, alleging the focus was on arbitrary deletions rather than additions, particularly targeting over 1.36 crore voters. Mamata Banerjee chose to argue personally in the Supreme Court to emphasise the urgency of protecting voters' rights in West Bengal from what she saw as the Election Commission's biased SIR process.
Also read: Plea in SC claims Mamata Banerjee's appearance legally untenable
When the SC bench observed that she had a strong legal battery of lawyers already in place to contest the case, Mamata indicated, rather tried to justify her appearance as ‘personal motivation’. She told the Bench that she was appearing as an ‘ordinary citizen’, not a party leader, because ‘justice is crying behind closed doors’ after writing six unanswered letters to the ECI.
Despite having top lawyers, she insisted on speaking directly to highlight alleged mass deletions of legitimate voters ahead of elections. With emphasis on the rhetoric ‘save democracy’, the West Bengal CM challenged the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state, which she argued would cause large-scale voter disenfranchisement.
While some may see this as ‘political strategy’, or ‘theatrics’ of a different flair, the fact remains it was widely seen as a historic move—first by a sitting CM; her call as a ‘defender of democracy’, from a prestigious platform, not less than the top court of the country, which apparently drew massive media attention and bypassed perceived legal delays. The court allowed it after initial surprise, noting her residency, albeit with care and caution.
It goes without saying that Mamata's personal appearance in the Supreme Court amplified her image as a fighter for Bengal's voters against perceived ECI bias in the SIR process, no matter contested and clarified well by the SC Bench on Monday with a loud message – that it won’t allow any impediments to the SIR process in any state.
The fact also remains that by this gesture ‘she killed not just two, instead several birds’. She very well reinforced her image as a brave ‘Didi’ defending democracy and to some extent attempted to counter anti-incumbency feeling ahead of 2026 polls by energising TMC supporters and highlighting voter deletions. While her personal appearance sparked a debate on judicial decorum, her move is seen as successful by many experts in terms of ‘political overreach’ from a non-political platform.
By Saroj Razdan
Follow us
