Adv Mamata Banerjee In The Supreme Court Pleaded For Bengal SIR Discrepancies
Mamata Banerjee created an unusual courtroom moment on Wednesday by stepping into the Supreme Court not as West Bengal’s Chief Minister, but as a “common citizen” challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Dressed in a black lawyer’s coat over her trademark white saree, Banerjee waited patiently for more than two hours before making her case before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant.
When her turn came, restraint gave way to rhetoric. In a charged submission, she accused the Election Commission of inflicting “unprecedented hardship” on ordinary Bengalis and warned that “justice is crying behind closed doors”. She claimed to have written six letters to the poll panel without receiving a reply and questioned the urgency of completing a process that normally takes two years within three months.
Banerjee’s core demand was clear: voter lists for the upcoming March–April elections should be based on the 2005 rolls, not the 2026 SIR. She alleged that lakhs of legitimate voters—particularly those opposed to the BJP—had been excluded under the guise of “logical discrepancies”, such as spelling variations, surname changes after marriage, or address shifts driven by poverty and migration.
She also targeted the deployment of 8,300 micro-observers, branding them “BJP officers” and their appointment unconstitutional. In an emotional appeal, Banerjee cited estimates that nearly 63 lakh voters risk exclusion and urged the court to direct the EC to publish, in machine-readable form, the names of 1.4 crore people struck off the rolls. She further sought acceptance of Aadhaar as valid proof of identity.
The court acknowledged the concerns as “genuine”, noting that spelling inconsistencies—particularly in Bengali names transliterated into English—cannot justify deletion. Senior advocate Shyam Divan highlighted the impossibility of hearing over 1.36 crore affected voters before final publication.
The EC defended its actions, citing lack of cooperation from the state administration. Ultimately, the bench issued notice to the poll body, sought its response by Monday, and urged officials to act with greater sensitivity—setting the stage for a high-stakes constitutional clash.
