“Protect Democracy”: Mamata Banerjee Personally Argues Before Supreme Court, Takes on ECI Over Voter List Revisions
Appearing before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Banerjee urged the Court to “protect democracy” and “protect people’s lives”, as the Court examined the legality and fairness of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.
Why This Hearing Was Unprecedented
While politicians routinely challenge constitutional authorities through lawyers, a sitting chief minister personally addressing the Supreme Court is virtually unheard of.
Banerjee, a trained advocate, made a 15-minute oral intervention—granted by the Court itself—asserting that she was not fighting for her party, but for millions of voters facing deletion from electoral rolls due to clerical and linguistic discrepancies.
Her courtroom presence transformed the proceedings from a technical election dispute into a constitutional moment on the right to vote.
The Core Allegation: Disenfranchisement Through Bureaucracy
Banerjee’s petition challenges the ECI’s SIR orders dated June 24 and October 27, 2025, alleging that the exercise has become deletion-centric rather than correction-oriented.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, opening arguments for Banerjee, placed stark figures before the Court:
32 lakh unmapped voters
1.36 crore names flagged for “logical discrepancies”
63 lakh hearings pending, with only days left before deadlines
According to the petitioners, the discrepancies often involve:
Minor spelling variations
Dialect-based pronunciation differences
Surname changes after marriage
Address changes due to migration or housing shifts
“These cannot become grounds to strike names off electoral rolls,” Divan argued.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The bench made it clear that genuine voters cannot be excluded for trivial errors, observing that spelling and dialect discrepancies are common across India.
Importantly, the Court:
Asked the ECI to act “carefully” while issuing notices
Directed the West Bengal government to propose officers fluent in local dialects to assist the verification process
Warned against mechanical issuance of notices, including to well-known authors and public figures
“No innocent citizen should be left out,” the Court emphasised.
Banerjee’s Direct Intervention: Politics Meets Constitutional Law
When permitted to speak, Banerjee delivered a pointed critique of the SIR process, alleging:
Selective targeting of West Bengal
Rushed timelines for a process that normally takes years
Misuse of micro-observers allegedly drawn from BJP-ruled states
She argued that mapping errors and minor mismatches are being used to justify deletions, in violation of earlier Supreme Court safeguards.
Her remark describing the poll panel as a “WhatsApp Commission” underscored the depth of mistrust between the state government and the ECI—though the bench focused firmly on institutional solutions rather than rhetoric.
Statutory and Constitutional Framework at Play
This dispute squarely engages:
Article 324 of the Constitution (powers of the ECI)
Article 14 (non-arbitrariness in state action)
Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 (democratic participation and dignity)
The Representation of the People Act, 1950, governing electoral rolls
Judicial precedents consistently hold that the right to vote, though statutory, cannot be curtailed arbitrarily and that electoral processes must be fair, transparent, and inclusive.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Bengal
This is not just a West Bengal issue.
The outcome will determine:
How far election authorities can go in voter verification
Whether administrative efficiency can override democratic inclusion
How courts balance electoral integrity with mass participation
With over one crore voters potentially affected, the Court’s final directions could reshape how voter roll revisions are conducted nationwide.
The Bottom Line
Mamata Banerjee’s appearance before the Supreme Court is not merely symbolic. It reflects a larger constitutional anxiety—that procedural rigidity, if unchecked, can hollow out democratic participation.
The Supreme Court now stands as the final arbiter between:
The ECI’s mandate to maintain clean rolls
And the citizen’s right to not be erased by clerical error
As the Court itself noted, every problem has a solution—but no democracy can afford to lose genuine voters along the way.

Comments
Post a Comment