The Supreme Court witnessed dramatic scenes as West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sought to personally argue the case against the voter list revision in the state. At one point, she got into an argument with Chief Justice Surya Kant and lawyers representing the other side.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday witnessed dramatic scenes as West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sought to personally argue the case against the voter list revision in the state. At one point, she got into an argument with Chief Justice Surya Kant and lawyers representing the other side.
During the proceedings, Mamata intervened and pleaded to argue the case herself even as Kant stressed that it was the state of West Bengal that had filed the petition and that it was already being represented by one of the best lawyers.
As Kant urged Mamata to argue through her counsel, and as she continued speaking, the Chief Justice was heard saying “she’s come here to something else”.
On her part, Mamata dubbed the Election Commission of India (ECI) the “WhatsApp Commission” and said it was not accepting government‑issued certificates.
Mamata further said, “Their process is only for deletion and not inclusion. A daughter marries and puts her husband’s name. That also they are objecting. When you give an order, they violate those orders too. They targeted only West Bengal, which is on the cusp of election. After 24 years, what was the hurry? BLOs died. They wrote the CEO is responsible. Bengalis are targeted. Why not Assam? Why not Northeast?”
The ECI is currently conducting the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. Mamata and her party, the Trinamool Congress (TMC), have opposed the exercise and accused the ECI, the Union government, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of a cascade of wrongdoings. Banerjee has filed a petition seeking a slew of reliefs from the Supreme Court.
On its part, the ECI told the Kant‑led bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, that it had asked the state government to provide Class‑II officers but the government had supplied only 80 officers of that rank. It further said that there existed an environment of hostility in the state against the ECI.
West Bengal flags issue of names in SIR
Before Mamata’s exchanges with the bench and the ECI’s lawyers, her counsel, Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan, told the court that more than 50 per cent of the notices issued were for minor mismatches in names.
Diwan also flagged the short timeline of the exercise and the extent of pending work.
Diwan said, “We have given a brief note. Please see. Number of days left for final publication of electoral rolls: 11 days. Number of days left to complete hearings: four days. Number of voters characterised as unmapped: 32 lakhs. LD post‑draft roll: 1.36 crore (20 per cent of electorate). Number of hearings since 16.12.2025: 88 lakh hearings at the rate of 1.8 lakh per day. Number of hearings pending: 63 lakhs approximately. At this rate, speed of 15.5 lakhs per day is required. Number of micro‑observers deputed without statutory basis: 8,300.”
Diwan sought directions from the Supreme Court to withdraw all notices that had been issued solely for minor mismatches of names.
What does Mamata’s SIR plea seek?
Mamata has six objectives with her petition and intervention before the Supreme Court.
Firstly, she wants the 2026 state elections to take place on the basis of the 2025 voter list, not the post‑SIR revised list.
Secondly, she wants minor discrepancies in names to be resolved using existing documents, without dragging voters into hearings.
Thirdly, she wants all “unmapped” and “logical discrepancy” cases uploaded on the CEO and DEO websites so citizens and political parties can transparently track the 1.4 crore voters being flagged or removed.
Fourthly, she wants directions that Aadhaar be accepted as valid ID wherever there is a name or spelling discrepancy, without demanding additional documents that effectively block poor or migrant voters.
Fifthly, she wants names linked to deletion requests to be published online. She also wants a prohibition on bulk deletion‑form drives to prevent quiet, large‑scale removals of voters.
Sixthly, she has sought the withdrawal of 8,100 micro‑observers from West Bengal, arguing that they create a parallel authority over local election officials and are not required for fair voter verification or hearings.
End of Article